Cited by 725Reading and Literacy DevelopmentNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFace Recognition and Perception

ERP manifestations of processing printed words at different psycholinguistic levels: time course and scalp distribution

Bentin, S., Mouchetant-Rostaing, Y., Giard, M. H., Echallier, J. F., Pernier, J.·1999·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to examine the time course and scalp distribution of electrophysiological manifestations of the visual word recognition mechanism. Event-related potentials (ERPs) elicited by visually presented lists of words were recorded while subjects were involved in a series of oddball tasks. The distinction between the designated target and nontarget stimuli was manipulated to induce a different level of processing in each session (visual, phonological/phonetic, phonological/lexical, and semantic). The ERPs of main interest in this study were those elicited by nontarget stimuli. In the visual task the targets were twice as big as the nontargets. Words, pseudowords, strings of consonants, strings of alphanumeric symbols, and strings of forms elicited a sharp negative peak at 170 msec (N170); their distribution was limited to the occipito-temporal sites. For the left hemisphere electrode sites, the N170 was larger for orthographic than for nonorthographic stimuli and vice versa for the right hemisphere. The ERPs elicited by all orthographic stimuli formed a clearly distinct cluster that was different from the ERPs elicited by nonorthographic stimuli. In the phonological/phonetic decision task the targets were words and pseudowords rhyming with the French word vitrail, whereas the nontargets were words, pseudowords, and strings of consonants that did not rhyme with vitrail. The most conspicuous potential was a negative peak at 320 msec, which was similarly elicited by pronounceable stimuli but not by nonpronounceable stimuli. The N320 was bilaterally distributed over the middle temporal lobe and was significantly larger over the left than over the right hemisphere. In the phonological/lexical processing task we compared the ERPs elicited by strings of consonants (among which words were selected), pseudowords (among which words were selected), and by words (among which pseudowords were selected). The most conspicuous potential in these tasks was a negative potential peaking at 350 msec (N350) elicited by phonologically legal but not by phonologically illegal stimuli. The distribution of the N350 was similar to that of the N320, but it was broader and including temporo-parietal areas that were not activated in the "rhyme" task. Finally, in the semantic task the targets were abstract words, and the nontargets were concrete words, pseudowords, and strings of consonants. The negative potential in this task peaked at 450 msec. Unlike the lexical decision, the negative peak in this task significantly distinguished not only between phonologically legal and illegal words but also between meaningful (words) and meaningless (pseudowords) phonologically legal structures. The distribution of the N450 included the areas activated in the lexical decision task but also areas in the fronto-central regions. The present data corroborated the functional neuroanatomy of word recognition systems suggested by other neuroimaging methods and described their timecourse, supporting a cascade-type process that involves different but interconnected neural modules, each responsible for a different level of processing word-related information.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/089892999563373

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ERPs recorded over left posterior visual regions within 150-200 ms demonstrate sensitivity to words relative to other stimuli that control for visual features.

    “Consistent with the rapid time course of visual word recognition, event-related potentials (ERPs) recorded over left posterior visual regions within 150-200 ms demonstrate sensitivity to words relative to other stimuli that control for visual features [12,13].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bentin, S., Mouchetant-Rostaing, Y., Giard, M. H., Echallier, J. F., & Pernier, J.
Affiliations
  • Hebrew University
  • INSERM-U280, Lyon, France.
  • Inserm (FR)
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Published
1999-05-01
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
235-260
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2139282113
Cited by
725
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 47
FWCI
15.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD #01994, P01HD001994)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
visual word recognition, event-related potentials, N170, N450, oddball paradigm, orthographic processing, phonological processing, lexical processing, semantic processing, pseudowords, hemispheric lateralization, scalp distribution, time course of processing, middle temporal lobe, temporoparietal cortex, occipitotemporal cortex
MeSH terms
Adult, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Printing, Psycholinguistics, Reaction Time, Reading, Scalp, Visual Perception, Event-Related Potentials, P300

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review