Evidence for Early Morphological Decomposition in Visual Word Recognition

We employ a single-trial correlational MEG analysis technique to investigate early processing in the visual recognition of morphologically complex words. Three classes of affixed words were presented in a lexical decision task: free stems (e.g., taxable), bound roots (e.g., tolerable), and unique root words (e.g., vulnerable, the root of which does not appear elsewhere). Analysis was focused on brain responses within 100–200 msec poststimulus onset in the previously identified letter string and visual word-form areas. MEG data were analyzed using cortically constrained minimum-norm estimation. Correlations were computed between activity at functionally defined ROIs and continuous measures of the words' morphological properties. ROIs were identified across subjects on a reference brain and then morphed back onto each individual subject's brain (n = 9). We find evidence of decomposition for both free stems and bound roots at the M170 stage in processing. The M170 response is shown to be sensitive to morphological properties such as affix frequency and the conditional probability of encountering each word given its stem. These morphological properties are contrasted with orthographic form features (letter string frequency, transition probability from one string to the next), which exert effects on earlier stages in processing (∼130 msec). We find that effects of decomposition at the M170 can, in fact, be attributed to morphological properties of complex words, rather than to purely orthographic and form-related properties. Our data support a model of word recognition in which decomposition is attempted, and possibly utilized, for complex words containing bound roots as well as free word-stems.

[1]  Liina Pylkkänen,et al.  A visual M170 effect of morphological complexity , 2009 .

[2]  A. Rodríguez-Fornells,et al.  Recognition of morphologically complex words in Finnish: Evidence from event-related potentials , 2007, Brain Research.

[3]  Kathleen Rastle,et al.  ERP Evidence of Morphological Analysis from Orthography: A Masked Priming Study , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[4]  J. Grainger,et al.  Effects of prime word frequency and cumulative root frequency in masked morphological priming , 2000 .

[5]  J. Grainger,et al.  Semantic transparency and masked morphological priming: an ERP investigation. , 2007, Psychophysiology.

[6]  L. Pylkkänen,et al.  Neuromagnetic Evidence for the Timing of Lexical Activation: An MEG Component Sensitive to Phonotactic Probability but Not to Neighborhood Density , 2002, Brain and Language.

[7]  K. Hugdahl,et al.  Neural correlates of morphological decomposition in a morphologically rich language: An fMRI study , 2006, Brain and Language.

[8]  E. Halgren,et al.  Dynamic Statistical Parametric Mapping Combining fMRI and MEG for High-Resolution Imaging of Cortical Activity , 2000, Neuron.

[9]  R. Oostenveld,et al.  Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data , 2007, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[10]  J. Hay Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? , 2001 .

[11]  Robert Schreuder,et al.  How Complex Simplex Words can be , 1997 .

[12]  R. Salmelin,et al.  Dynamics of letter string perception in the human occipitotemporal cortex. , 1999, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[13]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography , 2008 .

[14]  S. Dehaene,et al.  The visual word form area: a prelexical representation of visual words in the fusiform gyrus , 2002, Neuroreport.

[15]  Bruce D. McCandliss,et al.  The visual word form area: expertise for reading in the fusiform gyrus , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[16]  Alec Marantz,et al.  The neural basis of obligatory decomposition of suffixed words , 2011, Brain and Language.

[17]  L. Pylkkänen,et al.  Tracking the time course of word recognition with MEG , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[18]  Carol Whitney,et al.  Preface to the special issue: Neural representations in visual word recognition , 2011, Brain and Language.

[19]  R. Harald Baayen,et al.  Parsing and productivity , 2002 .

[20]  A. Idrissi,et al.  Morphological units in the Arabic mental lexicon: Evidence from an individual with deep dyslexia , 2004, Brain and Language.

[21]  R. Harald Baayen,et al.  Statistics in Psycholinguistics: A critique of some current gold standards , 2004 .

[22]  K. Marinković Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Word Processing in the Human Cortex , 2004, The Neuroscientist : a review journal bringing neurobiology, neurology and psychiatry.

[23]  Jennifer Hay,et al.  Phonotactics, parsing and productivity , 2003 .

[24]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  The time course of visual word recognition as revealed by linear regression analysis of ERP data , 2006, NeuroImage.

[25]  M. Taft Morphological Decomposition and the Reverse Base Frequency Effect , 2004, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[26]  Alec Marantz,et al.  Neural correlates of the effects of morphological family frequency and family size: an MEG study , 2004, Cognition.

[27]  Alec Marantz,et al.  A single route, full decomposition model of morphological complexity: MEG evidence , 2006 .

[28]  David Poeppel,et al.  Evidence for Early Morphological Decomposition: Combining Masked Priming with Magnetoencephalography , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[29]  K. Forster,et al.  Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words , 1975 .

[30]  W. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Abstractness, Allomorphy, and Lexical Architecture , 1999 .

[31]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Early decomposition in visual word recognition: Dissociating morphology, form, and meaning , 2008, Language and cognitive processes.

[32]  K. Forster,et al.  What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew? A masked-priming investigation of morphological representation. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[33]  R. Holloway The broth in my brother ’ s brothel : Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition , 2005 .

[34]  Lee H. Wurm,et al.  Lexical dynamics for low-frequency complex words: A regression study across tasks and modalities , 2007 .

[35]  Y. Adachi,et al.  Reduction of non-periodic environmental magnetic noise in MEG measurement by continuously adjusted least squares method , 2001 .

[36]  R. Baayen,et al.  Shifting paradigms: gradient structure in morphology , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[37]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  The broth in my brother’s brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[38]  Rebecca Treiman,et al.  The English Lexicon Project , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[39]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Morphological units in the Arabic mental lexicon , 2001, Cognition.

[40]  Alec Marantz,et al.  Architecture and Blocking , 2008, Linguistic Inquiry.

[41]  M. Ullman Contributions of memory circuits to language: the declarative/procedural model , 2004, Cognition.

[42]  S. Pinker,et al.  The past and future of the past tense , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[43]  Alec Marantz,et al.  Lexical access in early stages of visual word processing: A single-trial correlational MEG study of heteronym recognition , 2009, Brain and Language.

[44]  Alec Marantz,et al.  Cognitive neuroscience and the English past tense: Comments on the paper by Ullman et al. , 2005, Brain and Language.

[45]  Lars Borin,et al.  What is a lexical representation? , 1985, NODALIDA.