The neural basis of obligatory decomposition of suffixed words

Recent neurolinguistic studies present somewhat conflicting evidence concerning the role of the inferior temporal cortex (IT) in visual word recognition within the first 200 ms after presentation. On the one hand, fMRI studies of the Visual Word Form Area (VWFA) suggest that the IT might recover representations of the orthographic form of words. On the other hand, influential MEG studies of responses from the occipito-temporal regions around 150 ms post-stimulus onset indicate recognition of letters as opposed to symbols but not a sensitivity to statistical properties of letter strings associated with word form representations. Recent MEG experiments support the position that the IT does represent the visual word forms of morphemes and performs morphological decomposition modulated by the statistical relations between morphemes by 170 ms post presentation (at the M170 response). Responses to heteronyms show that the M170 does not make contact with the mental lexicon where word forms are connected to meanings. We report here an MEG study of pseudo-affixed words like brother, which masked priming studies have shown are decomposed in recognition. If the M170 response from IT does index obligatory morphological decomposition based on visual word forms but not lexical entries, we should find that the statistical relation between pseudo-stem and pseudo-suffix modulates the M170 for pseudo-affixed words, as for truly affixed words. The results of this experiment confirm this prediction. In addition, surface form frequency for these words also modulates the M170, providing some support for dual route recognition for words for which decomposition is a garden path.

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

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

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

[4]  Brian T. Gold,et al.  Neural Correlates of Morphological Decomposition during Visual Word Recognition , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

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

[7]  Alec Marantz,et al.  Evidence for Early Morphological Decomposition in Visual Word Recognition , 2010, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[8]  Anders M. Dale,et al.  An automated labeling system for subdividing the human cerebral cortex on MRI scans into gyral based regions of interest , 2006, NeuroImage.

[9]  Friedemann Pulvermüller,et al.  Neuromagnetic evidence for early semantic access in word recognition , 2001, The European journal of neuroscience.

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

[11]  David Poeppel,et al.  Masked repetition priming using magnetoencephalography , 2008, Brain and Language.

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

[13]  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.

[14]  Mariano Sigman,et al.  Hierarchical Coding of Letter Strings in the Ventral Stream: Dissecting the Inner Organization of the Visual Word-Form System , 2007, Neuron.

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

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

[17]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Language-specific tuning of visual cortex? Functional properties of the Visual Word Form Area. , 2002, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[18]  K I Forster,et al.  The Pros and Cons of Masked Priming , 1998, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[19]  R. Salmelin Clinical neurophysiology of language: The MEG approach , 2007, Clinical Neurophysiology.

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

[21]  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.

[22]  N. Barbaro,et al.  Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Word Processing in the Human Brain , 2007, Front. Neurosci..

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

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

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