The role of semantic and phonological factors in word recognition: An ERP cross-modal priming study...

Neuropsychologia 49 (2011) 161177

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Neuropsychologia

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /neuropsychologia

The rol incross-m rph

Aneta KiDepartment of

a r t i c l

Article history:Received 14 AReceived in reAccepted 24 NAvailable onlin

Keywords:Event related pN400 primingDerivational m

diffentented towe exduriicallyderi

morpand

The dandp

ing a bivariate distinction between derived and opaque forms. Moreover, these effects could not beaccounted for by semantic or phonological relatedness alone. The ndings support the theory that mor-phological relatedness is graded rather than absolute, and depend on the joint contribution of form andmeaning overlap.

2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introdu

Recent sogy represefrom lexicaLongtin, Se2008; Morr2000; Rastlinterest is wable) are tr(e.g., debatetrary mappwords becasponding tofashion in wble, beatablecan apply wgism to blogcomplex forstructure of

CorresponE-mail add

0028-3932/$ doi:10.1016/j.ction

tudies have examined whether grammatical morphol-nts an independent mechanism of language separatel organization and processing (Allen & Badecker, 2002;gui, & Halle, 2003; Marslen-Wilson, Bozic, & Randall,is, Grainger, & Holcomb, 2008; Plaut & Gonnerman,e & Davis, 2008; Rueckl & Aicher, 2008). Of specichether morphologically complex words (e.g., debat-

eated differently from morphologically simple words). Morphemes provide structure to the generally arbi-ing between the phonological and semantic forms ofuse sequences of phonemes (or letter strings) corre-stems or afxes occur repeatedly and in a predictableords that have similar meaning (e.g., debatable, walka-). Many such forms are also productive, such that theyidely to both familiar and novel forms (e.g., the neolo-can be used to create the derived form bloggable). Suchms therefore provide a unique opportunity to study thelanguage representations.

ding author. Tel.: +1 519 661 2111x86582.ress: [email protected] (M.F. Joanisse).

That said, much of what is known about morphological com-plexity comes from studies of inectional morphology, perhapsmost famously past tense in English. The interest in these casesstems from the observation that they tend to respect a strong dis-tinction between regular and irregular forms, which is reectedin interesting dissociations in how regular and irregular formsare learned by children and processed in adults (McClelland &Patterson, 2002; Pinker & Ullman, 2002). In contrast, derivationalmorphology arguablydoesnot have as strong adistinctionbetweenregular and irregular forms. Instead, there are more subtle differ-ences in the degree of semantic and phonological relatedness ofderived forms and stems. That is, some derived words have mean-ings that are consistently related to the meaning of their stems(e.g., happinesshappy, governmentgovern, beautybeautiful). Inaddition, these forms are phonologically transparent: they donot change the pronunciation and the stress pattern of the stemupon afxation. Not all forms are equally transparent, however.The meaning of the stem apart is not completely preserved inthe word apartment; likewise, serene is related in meaning toserenity, however the stem is phonologically altered. Such dif-ferences in morphological transparency are of interest becausethey might address theories that propose a categorical distinctionin the neurocognitive systems engaged in processing regular (orproductive) morphemes, vs. irregular (or unproductive) mor-phemes.

see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.neuropsychologia.2010.11.027e of semantic and phonological factorsodal priming study of derivational mo

elar, Marc F. Joanisse

Psychology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2

e i n f o

pril 2010vised form 4 November 2010ovember 2010e 1 December 2010

otentials (ERP)

orphology

a b s t r a c t

Theories of morphological processingstored and accessed. A key point of conition (e.g., establish+ment), compar(e.g., apartment). In the present study,phology by measuring ERP responseseffects for semantically and phonologpared to those of semantically opaquethat represent intermediate cases ofindependently manipulated semanticcouchsofa; phonology: panelpan).dependingon the amount of semanticword recognition: An ERPology

r on the issue of how lexical and grammatical information areion is whether complex forms are decomposed during recog-forms that cannot be analyzed into constituent morphemesamined these issueswith respect to English derivationalmor-ng a cross-modal priming lexical decision task. ERP primingtransparent derived words (governmentgovern) were com-

ved words (apartmentapart) as well as quasi-regular itemshological transparency (dresserdress). Additional conditionsphonological relatedness in non-derived words (semantics:egree of N400 ERP priming to morphological forms variedhonological overlapbetweenword types, rather than respect-

162 A. Kielar, M.F. Joanisse / Neuropsychologia 49 (2011) 161177

English derivational morphology also has a number of othercharacteristics thatmake it better suited topsycholinguistic inquirythan past tense. Regular and irregular derived forms are super-cially similar in several respects: both involve afxes, even if theyare not purare not argregular andwith respectwo types oto studyingsystem.

1.1. Theorie

A rangelanguage uwords as cosuch procethat extendFeldman &Marslen-Wries furthersuch that ru

One conthat monomalso treatedmechanismseparately f&CaramazzSchreuderdecomposerelationshipcally transprepresentedsemanticall*apart+menfor opaquendings sulogical decorecognitionRastle, DavMoscoso dealso modula

1.2. Morph

Decompcan be unacomplex. Hcases that aderivationaas it exhibiSeidenbergis neither funot to someclothes; onwords endidress and drto a lesser eexhibit this

Accordinnot dependbut is insteogy and sem1999; PlunkOn this theo

that some words are complex and others are not; instead mor-phological effects vary continuously as a function of the degree ofsemantic and phonological similarity among words. It builds onthe observation that, by denition, morphology is correlated with

ypesmante mes ammant levwh

en foinear/or omanor ths thecomnspapositsepa

ornerbilitynesso conwherd codiscorallyat ths nots in

into, sube therodualsoepenlikeanity

imin

ey studielangu: Lau: Be

Croaws,2000rigueon pholrocesovern, Tan1997echtodaand& FFeld

rphong. Teffecported to be segmentable (e.g., apartment and dresserued to be derived from apart and dress). In addition,irregular derived forms do not tend to differ markedlyt to frequency, allowingus tomoredirectly compare thef forms. Thus, derived words appear to be well suitedthe functional and neural structure of human language

s of morphological representation

of theories have been brought forward arguing thatsers decompose and store morphologically complexnstituents (Taft, 1988; Taft & Forster, 1975), and thatsses engage a distinct type of linguistic knowledges beyond semantics and phonology (Feldman, 2000;Prostko, 2002; Forster & Azuma, 2000; Rastle, Davis,ilson, & Tyler, 2000; Stolz & Besner, 1998). Such theo-suggest that production is the reverse of this processles are used to combine roots and afxes.

sequence of strict decomposition is that itmight predictorphemic words such as diaper, naked and cluster areas complex. This has led to the development of dual-models that handle systematic and transparent formsrom idiosyncratic opaque words (Laudanna, Badecker,a, 1989;Marslen-Wilson, Tyler,Waksler, &Older, 1994;& Baayen, 1995). On this theory whether a word isd or processed as a whole depends on the semanticbetween a word and its putative stem. While semanti-

arentwords are decomposed into stems and afxes andand processed compositionally (e.g., govern+ment),

y opaque words are stored as unanalyzed wholes (e.g.,t). Several recent studies reported facilitation effectsderivations in the context of masked priming. These

ggest the presence of an orthographic-based morpho-mposition process operating at early stages of word(Marslen-Wilson et al., 2008; Rastle & Davis, 2008;

is, & New, 2004; but see also Feldman, OConnor, &l Prado Martin, 2009, for evidence that such an effect isted by semantic factors).

ology as a convergence of codes

ositional accounts work well for cases in which formsmbiguously categorized as morphologically simple orowever, they have more difculty with intermediatere neither completely transparent nor opaque. Englishlmorphology seems to be rifewith these graded effects,ts many partial regularities. For instance, Gonnerman,, and Andersen (2007) point out that a word like dresserlly transparent nor opaque. In modern English, it refersonewhodresses but to a piece of furniture used to storethe other hand, it is a noun like all transparent derivedng in -er, and it is related to the activity of dressing. Thusesser do share some degree of semantic overlap, albeitxtent than transparently derived pairs.Many such casesquasi-regular character.g to the convergence of codes view, morphology doeson a unique set of lexical and/or rule representations,ad a learned mapping between orthography, phonol-antics (Gonnerman et al., 2007; Joanisse & Seidenberg,ett &Marchman, 1993; Rumelhart&McClelland, 1986).ry morphology is not an all-or-none phenomenon such

other tand sea singlpatternand sedistincedge inbetwea nonlcal andand seof one

Thithe denot tradecomstoredcorncis its arelatedseem tThus,dis- aning ofstructucue th*groc iularitieenterpermitbecausfully ptheorylarity dWordsvainv

1.3. Pr

A kfrom sferentItalianHebrewSerbo-Mattheet al.,& Rodcomma mortate p(e.g., gGilboaTyler,Schokncross-mprimes(BentinStolz &

Momeanilogicalof lexical information such as orthography, phonologyics. All words are hypothesized to be represented usingchanism in terms of partially overlapping activationong associatively linked phonological, orthographic

tic codes. As a result of this, morphology is not ael of knowledge but a special case of lexical knowl-ich statistical regularities capture systematic relationsrm and meaning information. This theory also assumesinteraction between semantic and formal (phonologi-rthographic) similarity; the joint contribution of formaltic similarity tends to be greater than the simple effecte other.ory takes a different view of lexical processing toposition view, which assumes that any form that isrently derived should be lexicalized; according to theion view, quasi-regular pairs like dressdresser arerately in the same way as fully opaque pairs (e.g.,). A key characteristic of the convergence of codes viewto accommodate different degrees of morphological

. For instance some words consist of morphemes thattribute to their meaning but in a less transparent way.eas discover might be analyzed into two morphemesver, the contribution of morpheme cover to the mean-ver is less than in uncover. Also words like grocer aresimilar to baker in the sense that the -er provides a

e word refers to a persons occupation, even thoughitself a valid word stem in English. Other partial reg-

volve bound morphemes such as -mit and -duce thatword formation but have little meaning. Words likemit and commit, or reduce and induce, are related onlyy contain similar morphemes that are nevertheless notctive (e.g., *unmit; Gonnerman et al., 2007). Finally, thisdistinguishes different degrees of phonological simi-ding on the amount of formal overlap between words.piratepiracy are more phonologically transparent than, and words like signsignal are phonologically opaque.

g studies of morphological processing

ource of data about morphological processing comess of morphological priming, across a number of dif-ages (Dutch and German: Drews & Zwitserlood, 1995;danna et al., 1989; Orsoloni & Marslen-Wilson, 1997;ntin & Felman, 1990; Frost, Deutsch, & Forster, 2000;tian: Feldman & Fowler, 1987; English: Devlin, Jamison,& Gonnerman, 2004; Gonnerman et al., 2007; Rastle; Spanish: De Diego Balaguer, Sebastian-Galles, Diaz,z-Fornells, 2005; French: Longtin et al., 2003). Thending among these studies is that prior exposure toogically complex word (e.g., government) can facili-sing of the target word from which it is derived). Facilitation occurs under auditory (Frost, Deutsch,

nenbaum, & Marslen-Wilson, 2000; Marslen-Wilson &; Marslen-Wilson & Zhou, 1999), visual (Forster, Davis,, & Carter, 1987; Frost, Forster, & Deutsch, 1997) andl presentation (Marslen-Wilson et al., 1994), and whentargets are separated by a number of intervening itemselman, 1990; Stanners, Neiser, Hernon, & Hall, 1979;man, 1995).logically related words are also related in both form andhus, investigators have sought to isolate pure morpho-ts by contrasting effects of sharedmorphologywith the

A. Kielar, M.F. Joanisse / Neuropsychologia 49 (2011) 161177 163

effects of shared orthographic and phonological formoverlap in theabsence of morphological relationship (e.g., carscar vs. cardcar,ribbedrib vs. ribbonrib; Kempley & Morton, 1982; Murrell &Morton, 1974), or effects resulting from semantic similarity (e.g.,reectedreFeldman, 2found thatcally related(Napps, 1982a) or sema1989; Stolz

The concal relatedneffects willmal relatedthat joint eobserved foHare, 2008words thatming from tThere is som(1979) founidentity ancally dissimpairs (shooking studiesFeldman&BNapps, 1989& Feldman,a trend towLikewise, inet al. (2007to the degrilarly, Morrgraded effeparent itemsmallest, anstudy, Diepphologicalby the degriment semathan seman

Pastizzoshared formdo not shartype word pmeaning (ecoatoat)and whenIn all threeand meaninitems wascombinationdings indmal and semthat morphthe convergFurther theoverlap ontive and tha

1.4. Present

As discumorphologywas not alw

logical and semantic factors, and by task parameters such asprime/target modality and SOA (for further discussion, see Kielaret al., 2008). Likewise, behavioral responses such as lexical deci-sion reect the endpoint of multiple stages of word recognition

opent foologg evet woare ualp dchmmanand.ur sta crohow

betn-Wrds ihogry ob

ic, phc effe& Daegarctivekey cdiffemanphololognd shdgevAs deich tanip

allyed belated by

ted shichrimee, 201999udege pude rolcommoretic anere

. Firsticalltermenty vatargeved vof thed semphore mecting vs. heldholding; vowedvow vs. pledgevow;000; Kempley & Morton, 1982). In general it has beenlexical decisions are facilitated more by morphologi-primes than by unrelated primes matched on formal

9; Napps & Fowler, 1987; Stolz & Feldman, 1995: Expntic similarity to targets (Bentin& Felman, 1990;Napps,& Feldman, 1995).vergence of codes theory predicts that morphologi-ess is a graded rather than absolute factor, such thattend to depend on the degree of semantic and for-

ness. Likewise, these effects should be interactive, suchffects of semantic and formal factors exceed what isr each in isolation (Feldman, 2000; Kielar, Joanisse &; Pastizzo & Feldman, 2009). Thus, priming effects forare morphologically related are explained as stem-he joint contribution of formal and semantic similarity.e support for this view. For example, Stanners et al.

d that although not signicant, the difference betweend morphological priming was larger in orthographi-ilar word pairs (e.g., hunghang) than in similar wordshake); indeed, across a range of morphological prim-(Basnight-Brown, Chen, Hua, Kostic, & Feldman, 2007;asnight-Brown,2008; Fowler,Napps,&Feldman, 1985;; Rueckl, Mikolinski, Raveh, Miner, & Mars, 1997; Stolz

1995; Tsapkini, Kehaya, & Jarema, 1999), there has beenards less priming when formal similarity is reduced.a series of cross-modal priming studies Gonnerman

) observed that the magnitude of priming was relatedee of semantic and phonological transparency. Sim-is, Frank, Grainger, and Holcomb (2007) reported act of morphological structure on priming, with trans-s showing the greatest effect, orthographic items thed opaque items showed intermediate effect. In anotherendaele, Sandra, and Grainger (2005) found that mor-priming effects in Dutch and French were modulatedee of meaning overlap between words. In this exper-ntically transparent primes showed more facilitationtically opaque primes and their orthographic controls.and Feldman (2009) investigated the inuence ofand meaning on word recognition in word pairs that

e morphemes (e.g., boatoat). In this study boatoatairs were compared with word pairs that shared only.g., swimoat), and pairs that shared only form (e.g.,when primes were unmasked at 116 and 250ms SOA,they were forward masked and presented for 48ms.experiments they found superadditive effects of formg, such that the magnitude of facilitation for boatoatgreater than what could be predicted from the linearn of the swimoat and coatoat effects alone. Theseicate that readers are sensitive to the degree of for-antic similarity between words, and support the idea

ological structure is graded and emerges as a result ofence of semantic and ortho/phonological information.se data suggest that the inuence of form and meaningthe magnitude of morphological facilitation is interac-t these effects combine in a nonlinear manner.

study

ssed above, much of what is known about derivationalcomes from behavioral priming studies. However itays clear how these effects are inuenced by phono-

leavingdifferemorphpriminpresen(ERPs)and scapproaogy, secoursefactors

In otext ofbeen soverlapMarsleget wothe ortthat anacoustgraphiRastletions rirrespesomewhereand seof mormorphform avs. ple1994).in whalso mstant.

Visuprecedby unrassesseunrelanent, wvs. unpJoanissKutas,amplitlanguaamplitory (H

Tosemanpairs wednesssemancally in(apartmgated bprime-preservowelogy anonly inbut wen the possibility that the time course of processing isr different types of words; for instance it could be thatical priming is different from purely form and meaningn if similar-sized effects are observed in all cases. Therk takes a different approach: event related potentialssed to provide precise information on the time courseistribution of morphological priming effects. Such anight allowus todistinguishprocesses related tophonol-tics and morphology by examining the relative timescalp distribution of priming effects due to each of these

udy, ERPsweremeasured to lexical decisions in the con-ss-modal priming paradigm. Cross-modal priming has

n in prior studies to be sensitive to the morphologicalween words (Kielar et al., 2008; Longtin et al., 2003;ilson et al., 1994). Moreover, presenting prime and tar-n different modalities minimizes effects that are due toaphic similarity of the two items. Thus, it is less likelyserved facilitation derives exclusively from low levelonetic or visual overlap between words. While ortho-cts are clearly interesting (Lavric, Clap, & Rastle, 2007;vis, 2008), they also tend to abstract away from ques-ding how morphology is encoded in spoken languageof orthography. The design of the study capitalizes onharacteristics of derivational morphology in English,rent processes vary with respect to their productivitytic transparency. Specically, prior behavioral studiesogical processing have attempted to isolate effects ofical structure by separately comparing effects of sharedared meaning (e.g., carcars vs. carcard, or vowedvowow; Feldman & Soltano, 1999; Marslen-Wilson et al.,scribed below,we took a somewhat different approach

he degree of shared form and shared meaning wasulated while holding morphological relatedness con-

presented stem forms were used as target stimuli,y either their derived forms (governmentgovern), ord words (apartmentgovern). The priming effects werecomparing the amplitude of the ERPs to related and

tems. Of specic interest was the N400 ERP compo-prior studies have shown is attenuated for primed

d targets (Bentin, McCarthy, & Wood, 1985; Kielar &10; Lavric et al., 2007; Mnte, Say, Clahsen, Schiltz, &; Rodriguez-Fornells, Mnte, & Clahsen, 2002). N400is thought to reect the lexicalsemantic aspects ofrocessing (Kutas & Federmeier, 2000) such that itseects the ease accessing or activating a word in mem-b, 1988; Holcomb & Neville, 1990).closely examine the locus of ERP priming effects,

d phonological relationships between prime and targetmanipulated concurrently with morphological relat-t, semantic relatedness was examined by comparingy transparent pairs (governmentgovern) to semanti-ediate (dresserdress) and semantically opaque pairsapart). Second, phonological transparencywas investi-

rying the phonological similarity of semantically similart pairs (e.g.,governmentgovern,where the stemform iss. serenityserene,which changes the stress pattern andstem). Third, the independent contributions of phonol-antics were tested by using words that were related

nology (e.g., dollardoll) or meaning (e.g., jacketcoat),orphologically unrelated.


Table 1Stimulus characteristics for the word items.

Transparent (+M+P+S) Quasi-regular (+M+PS) Opaque (+M+PS)

M SD M SD M SD

LengthTargetPrime

Frequencya

TargetPrime

NeighborhooTargetPrime

Prime-targeOrthograpPhonemesSteme

Sem Relf

logica

LengthTargetPrime

Frequencya

TargetPrime

NeighborhooTargetPrime

Prime-targeOrthograpPhonemesSteme

Sem Relf

a Log frequeb Number oc Number od Number oe Number of Semantic r

If thereopaque woobserve a ction of ERPaddition, ththat are simposition thpairs (serenthey cannophologicalsemantic oory, then aall morphodepend onwords. Tranhighly simithe amplituderivationsbut not melovelylove)parent andthe N400 poverlap. Grform is exp(e.g., illnessserenityserthe two list5.40 1.20 4.908.40 1.70 8.00

3.70 1.00 3.802.30 1.30 1.40

d (N)b

3.10 3.60 5.201.00 1.30 0.40

t overlap (%)hyc 62 11 58d 64 10 59

100 2 948 0 6

Transparent (+MP+S) Phono

M SD M

6.00 1.10 3.909.40 1.50 5.80

2.80 1.20 3.801.30 1.40 2.40

d (N)b

1.30 2.80 10.50.20 0.40 3.60

t overlap (%)hyc 55 9 66.10d 51 8 67.50

77 12 96

8 1 2

ncy of values from CELEX.f orthographic neighbors from N-watch.f letters shared in the same position between prime and target.f phonemes shared between prime and targets.f shared stem phonemes between prime and target.elatedness scores.

is a categorical distinction between transparent andrds based on their morphological structure, we shouldlear distinction in the magnitude, timing or distribu-priming effects for transparent and opaque cases. Ine quasi-regular cases should produce priming effectsilar to those of the opaque cases. Likewise, the decom-eory predicts that partially transparent prime targetityserene) should not produce N400 priming becauset be easily decomposed. If on the other hand, mor-effects arise from the correlation between formal andverlap as predicted by the convergence of codes the-modulation of N400 priming effects is expected for

logically related words, but the size of this effect willthe degree of formal and semantic overlap betweensparent derived forms (e.g., driverdrive), which arelar in form and meaning, are expected to attenuatede of the N400 component more strongly than opaque(e.g., departmentdepart), which are related in form

aning. Further, quasi-regular cases (e.g., dresserdress,should produce intermediate effects relative to trans-opaque forms. It is also expected that the size of

riming effects will be affected by the degree of formeater priming-related attenuation of the N400 wave-ected for words that are phonologically transparentill), compared to pairs that are less similar (e.g.,ene), even when semantic similarity is matched acrosstypes.

2. Methods

2.1. Participan

Sixteen rigticipate in thisethics board.(age range 17and reportedillness. Partici

2.2. Materials

Six sets ofrelationship aland semanticsderivational sution (+M+P+S)target pairs (e.consisted of 4involved a phoof 47 quasi-rmediate caseswas not derivrelationship. Tget pairs (e.g.,derivational atics (i.e., they awere two morwere phonolo42 phonologicfairyfair).1.10 4.30 1.101.30 7.00 1.40

1.60 3.20 1.501.80 2.40 1.90

6.00 8.10 5.800.80 1.30 2.00

11 60 1113 60 1212 96 102 2 2

l (M+PS) Semantic (MP+S)

SD M SD

1.00 5.02 1.201.50 6.42 1.60

1.60 3.60 1.001.50 3.20 1.60

6.10 4.70 4.104.40 1.56 2.80

10.10 1 59.90 4 99 - -

2 8 1

ts

ht-handed native speakers of English gave informed consent to par-study. All procedures were approved by a local institutional research

All participants were students at the University of Western Ontario32 years, M=24, SD=5), had normal or corrected-to normal vision,no hearing impairment and no history of neurological or psychiatricpants received two course credits or $20 for participating in the study.

prime-target pairs were constructed, in which we manipulated theong the three dimensions of interest: morphology (M), phonology (P)(S). The rst four sets consisted of pairs in which a word ending in afx primed a corresponding base word. The fully transparent condi-consisted of 49 semantically and phonologically transparent prime

g., governmentgovern). Thepartially transparent (+MP+S) condition5 prime target pairs that were semantically transparent but whichnological change (e.g., serenityserene). The third condition consistedegular forms (+M+PS, e.g., dresserdress); these represented inter-with respect to semantic transparency, such that although the primeed from the target word, there was some semantic and phonologicalhe +M+PS condition consisted of 47 semantically opaque prime tar-apartmentapart); in this case the prime consisted of the target plus afx, however the two were not closely related with respect to seman-re not considered derived on a decomposition account). Finally, therephologically unrelated conditions: 50 semantically related pairs thatgically and morphologically unrelated (MP+S; e.g., cartonbox);ally related but semantically unrelated word pairs (M+PS; e.g.,


Fig. 1. The 64 a fromanalyses: CC ( CP2, CMidline region e otheof the effect us C1); R

A list of uning each targeillnessbright;such that eachwith an unrelawas tested ononce. Primingand unrelated

Thenonwoable nonwordword, paired wwere includedtask. Includingrequired partia more surfacetrials includedsanitySMOP),ical status of t

All item chmeasures of wber of lettersJonasson, & Beorthographic obetween primPastizzo & Feld

Semanticobtained in a screated, consialong with 140ilar frequencydivided into twobtained fromwhodid not pationnaire in wrate the similaof 1 (not at allfull scale, andor have similaemphasize thameaning, and

The semanitem across rasix priming co

ot tocally t7.70,, SD=ermedthe fo=1.73ith ra

aviorachannel montage representing grouping of the electrodes into 11 regions: The datCz, CPz), FC (Fz, FCz), PC: (Pz, POz), LC (C5, C3, C1, CP5, CP3, CP1), RC (C2, C4, C6,s: CC, FC, PC; central regions: RC, LC, and parietal regions: LP, RP. The data from thing isovoltage maps: RF (F2, F4, F6, F8, FC2, FC4, FC6); LF (F7, F5, F3, F1, FC5, FC3, F

related prime-target pairs was created for each stimulus list by par-t in the set with an unrelated prime word from the same set (e.g.,happinessclean). To avoid repeating items, two listswere constructedtarget was presented only once, half with a related prime and half

ted prime, with targets counterbalanced across lists. Each participantonly a single list, so that they never saw a prime or target more thaneffects were then identied by comparing responses to the relatedprime lists within each condition.rd ller condition consisted of orthographically legal andpronounce-targets created by changing one or two letters of a familiar English

careful nsemanti8.10 (M=(M=1.96with intitems in3.30 (Mwords w

2.3. Beh

ith an unrelated real-word English prime (e.g., basketKAND). Thesefor thepurposeofproviding no response trials in the lexical decisionnonword targets that are orthographically and phonologically legal

cipants to attend to all characteristics of items rather than employingmetric such as word-likeness. In addition, a portion of the nonworda morphologically complex unrelated prime (e.g., brightnessTENCH;such that nonword trials were not predictable from the morpholog-he prime.aracteristics are presented in Table 1 and Appendix A, and includeord frequency (Baayen, Piepenbrock, & Gulikers, 1995), length (num-), orthographic neighborhood (Colthearts N; Coltheart, Davelaar,sner, 1977), semantic similarity (see below), and phonological andverlap (number of phonemes or letters shared in the same positione and target, divided by the number of letters in the longer word;man, 2002).similarity of word pairs was calculated using similarity ratingseparate norming study, as follows:A list of 526Englishwordpairswassting of items that t the description of the conditions listed above,

ller pairs selected at random from among English words of a sim-to the experimental items. Word pair order was randomized ando listswith the sequenceof itemscounterbalanced.Ratingswere then44 undergraduate students who were native speakers of English, andrticipate in the ERP study. Raterswere presentedwith awritten ques-hich the prime-target word pairs were listed. They were instructed tority of meaning of the two words in each pair using a numerical scalerelated) to 9 (extremely related). They were encouraged to use thewere reminded in the instructions that some words sound the samer spelling but have different meaning (e.g., ironyiron). This served tot judgments should focus on how strongly word pairs are related inthat they should ignore similarity in spelling and sound.tic similarity ratings were calculated by averaging responses for eachters. These were then used to select the nal items for each of thenditions on the basis of seeing responses in each range, and being

On each trcomputermonvisual targetwletters using ato the target v

EEGs weresystem usingtrode placed ofor later off-liover the outer0.01100Hz awere obtainedget onset, bas20Hz (24dB/o75V wereresponses.

To reduceof electrode call individualCondition-wis(ANOVAs) witRC) aswithin-The N400 ampat two time incompared meaDifference wafor each wordcally related wconditions difrepeatedmeaslateralcentra+M+PS) andseven electrode regions indicated by the solid line were used in theP4, CP6), RP (P2, P4, P6, P8, PO4, PO6), LP (P1, P3, P5, P7, PO3, PO5).r electrodes indicated by the broken line were used for visualizationT (FT8, T8, TP8); LT (FT7, T7, TP7).

let the range of responses overlap across conditions. Items in theransparent conditions (+M+P+S and +MP+S) had ratings from7.11 toSD=0.20). Items in the opaque set (+M+PS) had ratings of 1.302.710.40) and items in the quasi-regular set (+M+PS) contained itemsiate ratings between 3.60 and 6.90 (M=5.99, SD=0.90). In additionrm only set (M+PS) contained word pairs with ratings of 1.30 to

, SD=0.47) and items in the semantic only set (MP+S) containedtings of 7.008.42 (M=7.59, SD=0.48).

l task and EEG recordingial participants saw a xation cross displayed at the center of a 19

itor and simultaneously heard an auditory primeover earphones. Theas presented 500ms after the end of the auditory prime, in uppercaseblack font on white background. Participants made a lexical decisionia a keypress.recorded from 64 scalp sites according to the international 1020

Ag/AgCl sintered electrodes embedded in a cap and a reference elec-n the nose tip. Vertical and horizontal eye movements were recordedne rejection by placing electrodes above and below the left eye andcanthi of each eye. Signals were recorded with a bandpass lter of

nd sampled at 500Hz, with impedances kept at or below 5k. ERPsby dividing trials into epochs from 100 to 800ms relative to tar-

eline corrected to the pre-stimulus interval, and low pass ltered atct zero phase-shift digital lter). Trials with EOG activity greater thanexcluded from further analysis, as were trials containing incorrect

the amount of data to be submitted to statistical analyses, groupshannels were averaged to into 11 scalp regions (Fig. 1). Data fromelectrodes were used to visualize the effects via isovoltage maps.e ERPs were compared using repeated measures analyses of varianceh prime type (related vs. unrelated) and region (CC, FC, PC, LP, RP, LC,subjects factors,with separate analyses performed for eachword type.litude of each trial type was quantied by computing mean voltagestervals (early: 324400ms; late: 400476ms). Follow-up analysesn primed vs. unprimed amplitudes for each condition at each region.ves were also computed for the primed minus unprimed conditiontype. Follow-up analyses compared priming effects for morphologi-ords as follows: mean amplitude measures were calculated for eachference wave (related minus unrelated prime) and compared usingures ANOVAs at eachmidline (CC, FC, PC), lateralparietal (LP, RP) andl regions (LC, RC). The effects of semantic (+M+P: +M+P+S, +M+PS,phonological (+M+S: +M+P+S, +MP+S) relatedness were evaluated


Table 2Mean latency (ms) and accuracy (%) data for primed and unprimed targets in eachword condition.

Condition RT Accuracy

TransparentRelatedUnrelatedDifference

Quasi-Reg (+RelatedUnrelatedDifference

Opaque (+MPrimedUnprimedDifference

TransparentPrimedUnprimedDifference

PhonologicaPrimedUnprimedDifference

Semantic (PrimedUnprimedDifference

* p< .05.** p< .01.

by comparingconditions at a

3. Results

3.1. Behavi

Mean reIncorrect refrom the mical target swere also eparticipants

The RTANOVA (releffects of rep< .01, worand relatedF2(5, 270) =priming forisons revealprime targep< .01, F2(1F1(1, 15) =(+M+PS) Fopaque (+MThe primingmarginal byp= .06, F2(1the priminitems, F1(1,

A congruprime, F1(1F1(5, 75) =5dition interThe investigmore accur

parent (+M+P+S), F1(1, 15) =6.82, p< .05, F2(1, 48) =3.42, p> .05;opaque (+M+PS), F1(1, 15) =16.05, p< .01, F2(1, 45) =20.67, p< .01;quasi-regular (+M+PS), F1(1, 15) =8.41, p .05; for the semantic condition (M+SP)g effect was marginal by subjects and signicant by15) =4.24, p= .06; F2(1, 49) =5.04, p< .05.ent analysis of accuracy data revealed a main effect of

, 15) =21.32,p< .01, F2(1, 270) =41.14,p< .01,word type,.93, p< .01, F2(5, 270) =3.84, p< .01 and prime by con-action, F1(5, 75) =5.50, p< .01, F2(5, 270) =4.39, p< .01.ation of this interaction revealed that responses wereate for related than unrelated targets in fully trans-

and no intePlanned

morphologtransparentunprimeding effecttargets atF(1,15) =10RP, F(1, 15)p< .01; PC, Ftargets wermidline regp< .05). In cfully transp(all Fs .05.

ults

d average ERPs to the related and unrelated verbs inion at the midline frontal, central and parietal regionsare shown in Fig. 2. The magnitude of the N400 prim-

(unrelatedrelated) is plotted for each condition at thetral region (CC) in Fig. 3A and B; isovoltage maps showtion of the early and late N400 priming effects acrosscalp in Fig. 3C.

N400 primingexamined priming for each condition at the early N400w (324400ms); the analysis for the fully transpar-S) targets revealed signicant main effects of region,.47, p< .01, relatedness, F(1, 15) =12.54, p< .01, and a region interaction, F(6, 90) =4.45, p< .05. Follow-upvealed signicant priming at all seven electrode regionsepartially transparent (+MP+S) conditionalsoyieldedmain effects of relatedness, F(1, 15) =6.89, p< .05 and, 90) =3.86, p< .01 and an interaction, F(6, 90) =3.43,icant priming was found at the midline regions andt central and right parietal regions. The quasi-regularM+PS) showed signicant main effects of region, F(6,

p< .01 and relatedness, F(1, 15) =9.10, p< .01, but no, F(6, 90) =2.50, p> .05. The follow-up analyses revealedpriming effects across all seven regions. For the opaque+M+PS) there was a signicant main effect of region,.76, p< .01, but not relatedness, F(1, 15) =1.58, p> .05raction [F .05, and no interaction, F(6,> .05. Finally, the semantic condition showed a main

gion, F(6, 90) =4.35, p< .01, but not relatedness [F .05.comparisons of the N400 priming effects across

ically related conditions +M+P (+M+P+S: fully, +M+PS: quasi-regular, +M+PS: opaque), usingprimed difference waves, revealed a greater prim-for fully transparent words compared to opaquethe lateralcentral (LC, F(1, 15) =5.75, p< .05; RC,.79, p< .01), lateralparietal (LP, F(1, 15) =5.23, p< .05,= 17.31,p< .01), andmidline regions (CC, F(1, 15) =11.20,(1, 15) =13.71, p< .01). Priming effects for quasi-regulare signicantly greater than for opaque targets at theions (CC, F(1, 15) =4.81, p< .05, and PC, F(1, 15) =7.20,ontrast, there were no signicant differences betweenarent and quasi-regular words at any of the regionsAnalogous analyses comparing difference waveformsord pairs (+M+P+S: fully transparent vs. +MP+S:

ansparent), revealed greater priming effects for fullytargets compared partially transparent targets at the

ietal and midline regions (LP, F(1, 15) =4.76, p< .05; RP,28, p< .05), PC, F(1, 15) =4.42, p< .05).

cts of semantic and phonological overlap. Effects ofnd phonological relatedness were evaluated by com-litudes of the difference waves (unrelatedrelated)

rphologically related conditions. The rst repeated


measures(+M+P: +Mlap (+M+S:regions (LCmain effecdition, F(3,Fig. 2. Grand average ERPs (n=16) elicited by related and unrelated wo

ANOVA, evaluated effects of semantic overlap+P+S, +M+PS, +M+PS) and phonological over-+M+P+S, +MP+S) across at all seven electrode

, RC, LP, RP, FC, CC, PC). This analysis revealedt of region, F(6, 90) =6.36, p


Fig. 3. N400 peach morpholtime intervals

trode regionrelatedness30) =4.28, pF(2, 30) =6.0p< .01; PC,revealed grB), such thatransparentpared to opF(1, 15) =10p


Table 3Analysis of N400 priming effects across conditions and electrode regions. F-values are listed, for the comparison of primed vs. unprimed ERPs.

Word type Electrode region

CC FC PC LC RC LP RP

Early N400 (Trans (+M 7.Quasi (+M 6.Opaque (+ nsTrans-p (+ nsPhon (M nsSem (M ns

Late N400 (4Trans (+M 5.Quasi (+M 8.Opaque (+ nsTrans-p (+ nsPhon (M nsSem (M ns

* p< .05.** p< .01.

ent (+M+P+(+MP+S).

3.2.2. Late NWithin

transparentrelatednessrelatednessup analysesregions exc(+MP+S) cF(6, 90) =6.and no intesignicantmness, F(1, 15Follow up aexcept FC. Tof region, F(p> .05; the90) =3.53, ppriming effecondition shp< .01, but np> .05). Simmain effect15) =1.67, p

As in theforms in th+M+PS: qdifferencesinterval (Fs

3.2.2.1. Effeearlier timeednesswer(unrelatedrst ANOVA+M+PS, ++MP+S) aCC, PC). ThiF(6, 90) =7.270) =2.57,logical relatrelatednesswith three lentered as

ffectindi

arente tarncesthe rnessM+Pres Aions.32, pRC, F

cussi

re isy touagrimirman

etkernctio& Tyen, V7; Ved daqueciali

f wo324400ms)+P+S) 12.85** 10.57* 14.05**

+PS) 9.82* 13.18** 9.69**M+PS) ns ns nsMP+S) 7.67* 6.77* 6.65*+PS) 5.37* ns nsP+S) ns ns ns00-476 ms)+P+S) 5.11* ns 8.50*

+PS) 5.25* ns 5.93*M+PS) ns ns nsMP+S) ns ns ns+PS) ns ns nsP+S) ns ns ns

S) words compared to partially transparent targets

400 primingthe 400475 time window, the analysis of the fully(+M+P+S) condition revealed signicantmain effects of, F(1, 15) =7.44,p< .05, region, F(6, 90) =5.80,p< .01, andby region interaction, F(6, 90) =3.63, p< .05. The follow-indicated signicant priming at all midline and lateralept FC (Table 3, bottom). For the partially transparentondition there was a signicant main effect of region,78, p< .01, but not relatedness, F(1, 15) =1.61, p> .05,raction [F .05.nalyses revealed signicant facilitation at all regionshe opaque condition yielded a signicant main effect6, 90) =5.69, p< .01, but not relatedness, F(1, 15) =1.82,relatedness x region interaction was signicant, F(6,< .05. The follow-up analyses indicated a signicantct at the LP region, F(1, 15) =10.86, p< .01. The semanticowed a signicant main effect of region, F(6, 90) =4.48,ot relatedness, [F .05, and no interaction F(6, 90) =1.12, p> .05.early time window, planned comparisons of the wave-e three +M+P conditions (+M+P+S: fully transparent,uasi-regular, +M+PS: opaque) revealed no signicantin mean amplitudes among conditions at this time

icant ep< .05,transpopaqudiffereany ofrelatedtions (measucondit15) =3p> .05,

4. Dis

Thephologof langioral pGonneWilson(Badecand fuDavis,Lehtonal., 200reportand opof a speture o. 05; RP, F(1, 15) =2.02, p> .05; PC, F(1, 15) =1.91,

C, CC: all Fs


& Aicher, 2008; Rueckl et al., 1997). An interesting aspect of thisaccount is that the magnitude of priming varies with the degree ofform or meaning relatedness, similar to what has previously beenobserved in past tense (Kielar et al., 2008; Kielar & Joanisse, 2010;Pastizzo&Freect casesstrongest aular such thas well.

The contwas the adcomputatioanalysis. ThRT data reobscure thedifferencesThus, it is pyield a simpairs, but dovercome trevealed eit

In this smeaning wand targeton a key chderived formtransparencing ERP prim(+M+P+S: gword pairsthat are notdegree ofmthe effect oforms by hophonologicserenityserpriming wamorphologor semanticand meaninof this infor

The resutors modulpriming eff(+M+P+Sanover, we foin nature aThe largestrelated in bcomparedwith respec(+MP+S: opriming eff(boxcartonsemanticallphonologic

The resumorphologet al., 2007for morphsmaller effeand an int(centercenprocessingDevlin et apresentatio

cally related prime target pairs. The priming related reductionin activation for morphologically related words overlapped withorthographic effects in the posterior occipitaltemporal cortex, andwith semantic effects in themiddle temporal cortex, indicating that

ologtic sid andm anicaller thof

ution-mtim

t stuhe timw sigelatenesspairsrtialtic aopaqted wignihe laarentateded pd sem(+M+

forlosel+S, orp

eaninw thractie re

ectsl asmo

oral& Ddiesetterpthathichffectt stuappen. Thwheantlirs cfactthe

sing.wasevered gor oparly-stlethaneldman, 2002). On this view,morphological regularitieswhere themapping between sound andmeaning is the

nd most consistent. However, the effects are quasireg-at they can also occur for putatively non-derived cases

ribution of the ERP measures used in the present studydition of a continuous measure of changes in mentaln over time, which reects pre-decision stages of wordis contrasts with behavioral priming studies, in whichects the nal output of multiple processes. This mayfull scope of processing and lead to a failure to observein processing that resolve prior to response generation.ossible that pairs of words that are formally related willilar magnitude of priming as morphologically relatedue to different underlying processes. ERP studies helphis by allowing separable cognitive mechanisms to beher temporally or spatially.tudy, the separate effects of shared form and sharedere contrasted with effects occurring when the primeoverlapped in both form and meaning. We capitalizedaracteristic of derivational morphology in English, thats varywith respect to their phonological and semantic

y. The semantic dimension was examined by compar-ing effects of semantically transparent derived words

overnmentgovern) to those of semantically opaque(+M+PS: apartmentapart) and quasi-regular casesderived, but which are typically rated as sharing someeaning nevertheless (+M+PS: dresserdress). Likewise,f formal relatedness was investigated for transparentlding semantic relatedness constant and varying only

al similarity (e.g., +M+P+S: dancerdance; vs. +MP+S:ene). In addition, strictly meaning- and form-baseds assessed to investigate the degree to which observedical effects are the consequence of simple phonologicalsimilarity. Including stimuli on the continuum of formg overlap allowed us to observe a graded contributionmation to word recognition.lts showed that both phonological and semantic fac-ated the amplitude of N400 priming. Signicant N400ects were observed for the two sets of transparent pairsd+MP+S) and forquasi-regularpairs (+M+PS).More-und that morphological priming effects were gradednd modulated by phonological and semantic factors.priming effect was obtained for words that are closelyoth meaning and sound (+M+P+S: governmentgovern),to intermediate cases that overlapped more weaklyt to semantics (+M+PS: dresserdress) or phonologybsceneobscenity). These in turn produced greater N400ects than items that were only semantically associated) or word pairs that were phonologically similar butyunrelated (i.e., opaque +M+PS: apartmentapart, andal M+PS: dollardoll).lts are consistentwithearlier reportsof gradedeffectsofical structure in an ERP masked priming study (Morris). This earlier study found the largest priming effectsologically transparent forms (teacherteach), muchcts for an orthographic control condition (nickelnick),ermediate effect for morphologically opaque wordst). The inuence of form andmeaning onmorphologicalalso has been reected in the pattern of fMRI activation.l. (2004) measured fMRI suppression during maskedn of morphologically, semantically and orthographi-

morphsemanby Golfusiforphologtogethcessingcontriband no

Thepresenwith twindoically rrelatedwordand pasemanticallycorrelashow s

In ttranspattenuincreasmal anwordstic andpairs c(+MPThus, mand mthe vieof inte

Soming effas welend inbehaviRastle,ing stu(Lavricbeen inanismand wSuch epresenformsdomaistudysignicent pato theimizedproceswhichover sobservthan fthat eby Raratherical effects reect the contribution of orthographic andmilarity. Similarly, a masked priming study conductedRastle (2007) found attenuated fMRI responses in the

d posterior-occipital gyri that were equivalent for mor-y and orthographically related prime target pairs. Takenese results suggest that brain regions involved in pro-orthographic and semantic input make an equivalentn to encoding this information in both morphologicalorphological contexts.e-varying pattern of the ERP priming effects in thedy suggests that the exact pattern of facilitation changes

e course of word processing. In the early N400 timenicant priming effects were observed for morpholog-d words and to a lesser extent also for phonological. The effect was the greatest for the fully transparent(+M+P+S), followed by the quasi-regular (+M+PS),

ly transparent targets (+MP+S), which shared weakernd phonological overlap, respectively. For the seman-ue condition, similarity in form was not consistentlyith similarity in meaning and thus these items did notcant facilitation.ter time interval the N400 priming effects persisted for(+M+P+S) and quasi-regular targets, but were greatlyfor all other conditions. These results indicate thatrocessing time strengthened the joint inuence of for-antic overlap. The fully transparent and quasi-regularP+S, +M+PS) consistently overlapped on both seman-mal dimensions, while the remaining prime targety overlapped on only one dimension, either meaningMP+S) or form (+M+PS, M+PS), but not both.

hological effects are most pronounced when both formg are strongly and consistently correlated, supporting

at theword recognition system is sensitive to the degreeon between semantic and formal codes.cent masked priming studies have observed prim-for both morphologically related pairs (breakerbreak)for morphologically opaque forms that neverthelessrpheme-like segments (brotherbroth). This includespriming (Marslen-Wilson et al., 2008; McCormick,avis, 2008; Rastle et al., 2004), as well as ERP prim-examining either N400 or earlier-going components

al., 2007; Morris et al., 2008). These ndings havereted as reecting a morpheme decomposition mech-occurs at early stages of visual word recognition,

is not sensitive to the semantic properties of words.s appear inconsistent with what was found in thedy. That said, priming of morphologically opaquears to be isolated to the orthographic (i.e., visual)us, we failed to nd similar effects in the presentn using cross-modal priming; instead we observedy stronger priming effects for semantically transpar-ompared to opaque pairs. We suggest this is duethat primes were presented auditorily, which min-inuence of visual or orthographic mechanisms onThis procedure also involved relatively long SOAs,necessarily the case since auditory words unfold

al hundred milliseconds. Overall, the fact that wereater priming for morphologically transparent pairsaque pairs seems consistent with the interpretationgoing morphological effects like the ones discussedand Davis (2008) reect orthographic mechanisms,

a modality-general morphological decomposition


mechanism. Consistent with this interpretation, Longtin et al.(2003) found facilitation of both transparent and opaque tar-gets using masked visual priming paradigm, but only transparentwords primed their stems under cross-modal presentation. Sim-ilar resultswho againonly in thecondition.

The ndof morpholstudy by Fepriming effesemanticallpresent stunicantly gThe presensimilarity cwords.

A criticatify effectsmorphologiof semanticto identifying in a deno primingexclusion othat morphlanguage, btematic mainstance, thposes thatactivation pgraphic andGonnermanit encodesand opaquefer becauseThe theorymal (orthogsimilarity wa semanticple, locksoof meaningtics but haproduce leslogically rein both forwhen these(Rueckl et athis comes fin morpholoverlapping2009).

Anothertic MP+Srst glancelematic giveto semantic(Brown & HHolcomb &effect can bthe proportin the stim1988). Theset used ining a forma

semantic overlap (82% vs. 18% of related trials). This may have ledthe word recognition system to tune more to the formal character-istics of items and less to the semantic relationship between words(Bodner & Mason, 2003; de Groot, 1984; Holcomb, 1988; Napps

ler, 1werher

ropoe, 20alsoicat ineviouy othan, 1bachls etdecive pd anaent ase see ofnentensitdinge wo

clus

cessind prng ofute

s whbetrespreveed td formteadpro

hat ms inarec ands.

wled

wasienceted bardructue are

early

dix A

e aed focneiglogicwere reported by Diependaele et al. (2005) in Dutch,found that opaque derivations produced facilitationvisual modality, and not in a similar cross-modal

ing that semantic similarity modulated ERP primingogically related forms is also consistent with a recentldman et al. (2009), who compared forward maskedcts for semantically transparent (e.g., coolantcool) andy opaque word pairs (e.g., rampantramp). As in thedy, they found that morphological facilitation was sig-reater for transparent than opaque prime target pairs.t results support their interpretation that semantican inuence the processing of derivationally sufxed

l nding of the present study is the failure to iden-that can be solely attributed to morphology. Effects ofcal relatedness were clearly modulated by the degreeand/or phonological relatedness. Similarly, we failed

effects that occurred for all and only all words end-rivational sufx (regardless of transparency). Finally,effects occurred solely for transparent forms to thef all others. This seems consistent with the theoryology reects not a unique representational mode ofut rather a special case in which there exists a sys-pping between form and meaning information. Fore convergence of codes theory of morphology pro-morphological regularities emerge from overlappingatterns in the associatively linked phonological, ortho-semantic codes (Joanisse & Seidenberg, 1999; Plaut &, 2000). This is a single mechanism in the sense thatboth transparent and opaque words. The transparentderivations, as well as regular and irregular forms, dif-they draw on meaning and form to different degrees.also assumes nonlinear effects of semantic and for-raphic and/or phonological) overlap, such that formill have the greatest effect for words that also sharerelationship (Pastizzo & Feldman, 2009). For exam-ck are formally similar but differ signicantly in terms, whereas lock and key overlap in terms of seman-ve minimal formal overlap. Accordingly, lock shoulds facilitation for the target sock than for the morpho-lated word locker, since the latter overlaps with lockm and meaning. Thus, morphological priming arisesoverlapping cues lead to facilitation in accessing awordl., 1997). Perhaps the most striking demonstration ofrom the recent nding of superadditive priming effectsogically unrelated word pairs that nevertheless shareformandmeaning (e.g.,boatoat, Pastizzo&Feldman,

aspect of the present results is thatwords in the seman-condition did not produce signicant N400 effects. At

, the failure to observe semantic priming seems prob-n previous studies that reported a sensitivity of N400ally related word pairs in visual lexical decision tasksagoort, 1993; Deacon, Hewitt, Yang, & Nagata, 2000;Neville, 1990). However, it is also known that the N400e inuenced by stimulus list characteristics, such asion of semantically related and unrelated word pairsulus set (Brown, Hagoort, & Chwilla, 2000; Holcomb,present results may also reect this. In the stimulusthis study, the proportion of prime target pairs shar-l relationship was greater than those sharing a strictly

& Fowresultstense wthan pJoaniss

Weis, signbut noour pralso bFriedmKellenFornellexicalcognitiof worrepresresponoutcomcompomore sing, leato thosness.

5. Con

ProERPs ameanicontribest waoverlapthe ERPeffectsindicatderiveare insused inview tularitiewordstematiproces

Ackno

AKural Scsupportor Awinfrasttion. Win the

Appen

Primmatchgraphiphonorating.987; Tweedy, Lapinsky, & Schvaneveldt, 1997). Similare found in our previous priming study of English paste the proportion of formally related trials was greaterrtion of words sharing semantic relationship (Kielar &10).noted that RT results differed from ERP results; that

nt priming was found for the opaque condition in RTs,the ERP data. A similar dissociation was obtained ins N400 priming study (Kielar & Joanisse, 2010), ander authors (Brown & Hagoort, 1993; Hamberger &992; Jescheniak, Schriefers, Garrett, & Friederici, 2002;, Wijers, & Mulder, 2000; Mnte et al., 1999; Rodriguez-al., 2002). The data suggest that N400 amplitude andsion response latencies reect partially independentrocesses that may not be sensitive to the same stageslysis. The N400 effects examined in the present study

n intermediate stage of word analysis occurring prior tolection. In contrast, the reaction time effects reect theinformation processing that extends beyond the ERP

s of interest here. Therefore, it is possible that ERPs areive to the interactive effects between form and mean-to larger effects for words that overlap in both, relativerd pairs that only share a single dimension of related-

ions

ngofmorphologically complexwordswasstudiedusingiming. The results provide a measure of how form andwords are computed over time and how these factors

to the processing of morphological structure. Of inter-ether the differences in the degree of form and meaningweenderivationally relatedwordswould be reected inonses. Decomposing theN400 into early and late-goingaled time-varying patterns of facilitation. The resultshat processing differences between derived and non-

s are not strictly due to morphological complexity buttied to differences in the basic modes of representationcessing words. Thus, the results are consistent with theorphology is processed as a function of statistical reg-

sounds and meanings. Because morphologically relatedsimilar in both respects, they are connected in a sys-

structured way that inuences the word recognition

gments

supported by a Postgraduate Scholarship from the Nat-s and Engineering Research Council (NSERC). MFJ wasy a Discovery Grant from NSERC and a New Investiga-

from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. ERPre was provided by the Canada Foundation for Innova-grateful to Randy Lynn Newman for helpful commentsstages of this study.

.

nd target pairs used in the experiment. Itemsr natural log frequency values from CELEX, ortho-hborhood (N-watch;Davis, 2005), orthographic length,

al and orthographic overlap and semantic relatedness


Appendix A (Continued)

Prime Target Phon overlap Ortho overlap Sem Rel

Item Freq Len N Item Freq Len N (%phonemes) (%letters)

Fully transpaIllnessHappinessToughnessTalkerSicknessWeaknessThicknessFarmerPrisonerDiscoveryPainterSelectionDirtyHunterCleanerSwimmerAcceptableDependableNicelyMessyPredictableBrightnessBitternessComfortableJudgmentHarmfulDancerFriendlyDebatableDelightfulLonelinessSuccessfulSlowlyRigidityTaxationStarvationComplexityDensityExaminationImaginationImmunityIntensityAlterationRelaxationElectionAttractionSecurityModernityStupidityMeanSD

Partially tranDecisionDeceptionSerenityCriminalObservationAdmirationCombinationCondemnatiConsultationCuriosityElectricityEqualityExpectationExplanationHostilityInspirationInvitationMaturationMoralityNobilityRapidityrent (+M+P+S)3.5 7 0 Ill 4.1 3 2 40.0 42.9 7.83.3 9 0 Happy 4.9 5 2 57.1 44.4 7.80.8 9 1 Tough 3.6 5 5 50.0 55.6 7.70.7 6 4 Talk 5.6 4 8 60.0 66.7 7.32.8 8 0 Sick 4.2 4 15 50.0 50.0 7.73.1 8 0 Weak 3.8 4 8 50.0 50.0 7.91.3 9 0 Thick 4.2 5 3 50.0 55.6 7.83.4 6 4 Farm 4.2 4 6 80.0 66.7 7.72.8 8 1 Prison 4.2 6 1 71.4 75.0 7.83.5 9 1 Discover 3.8 8 0 88.9 88.9 7.82.9 7 4 Paint 3.7 5 6 66.7 71.4 7.53.4 9 0 Select 3.0 6 0 71.4 66.7 7.63.7 5 1 Dirt 3.0 4 5 80.0 80.0 7.82.4 6 2 Hunt 3.3 4 8 66.7 66.7 7.82.2 7 4 Clean 4.5 5 3 66.7 71.4 7.60.8 7 3 Swim 3.2 4 5 66.7 57.1 7.73.4 10 1 Accept 4.6 6 1 75.0 60.0 7.80.6 10 0 Depend 3.5 6 1 75.0 60.0 7.42.3 6 1 Nice 5.0 4 7 60.0 66.7 7.21.4 5 2 Mess 3.3 4 7 75.0 80.0 7.80.0 11 0 Predict 2.3 7 0 77.8 63.6 7.41.7 10 0 Bright 4.3 6 4 57.1 60.0 7.92.3 10 0 Bitter 3.6 6 8 71.4 60.0 7.90.0 11 0 Comfort 3.7 7 1 71.4 63.6 7.83.2 8 0 Judge 4.0 5 3 42.9 50.0 7.32.1 7 0 Harm 3.6 4 7 66.7 57.1 7.41.8 6 4 Dance 3.8 5 1 66.7 83.3 7.83.9 8 0 Friend 5.2 6 0 71.4 75.0 7.20.2 9 0 Debate 3.7 6 2 71.4 55.6 7.12.6 10 0 Delight 3.3 7 0 62.5 70.0 7.82.4 10 1 Lonely 3.3 6 1 62.5 50.0 7.94.4 10 0 Success 4.6 7 0 66.7 70.0 8.04.9 6 0 Slow 4.4 4 12 66.7 66.7 7.81.4 8 0 Rigid 3.2 5 0 62.5 62.5 7.63.0 8 0 Tax 4.7 3 9 42.9 37.5 7.52.0 10 0 Starve 1.9 6 0 55.6 50.0 7.82.5 10 0 Complex 4.2 7 0 70.0 70.0 7.92.5 7 1 Dense 2.6 5 2 57.1 57.1 7.50.0 11 0 Examine 3.4 7 0 60.0 54.5 7.70.0 11 0 Imagine 4.5 7 1 60.0 54.5 7.81.2 8 1 Immune 1.8 6 0 57.1 62.5 7.83.1 9 1 Intense 3.6 7 1 66.7 66.7 7.81.1 10 0 Alter 2.9 5 3 55.6 50.0 7.52.2 10 0 Relax 2.9 5 1 55.6 50.0 7.84.3 8 3 Elect 1.6 5 2 57.1 62.5 7.62.6 10 0 Attract 3.0 7 0 62.5 70.0 7.34.8 8 0 Secure 3.5 6 0 62.5 62.5 7.6

0.1 9 0 Modern 5.1 6 0 66.7 66.7 7.22.0 9 0 Stupid 3.6 6 0 66.7 66.7 8.02.3 8.4 0.8 3.7 5.4 3.1 63.6 62.1 7.71.3 1.7 1.3 0.9 1.2 3.6 10.1 10.6 0.2

sparent (+MP+S)4.6 8 1 Decide 4.2 6 2 42.9 50.0 7.92.1 9 1 Deceive 1.7 7 1 37.5 44.4 7.81.2 8 0 Serene 1.6 6 0 50.0 62.5 7.13.5 8 0 Crime 3.9 5 4 37.5 50.0 7.60.0 11 0 Observe 2.9 7 0 60.0 54.5 7.92.8 10 0 Admire 2.8 6 0 44.4 50.0 7.90.0 11 0 Combine 2.8 7 1 50.0 54.5 7.6

on 0.0 12 0 Condemn 2.0 7 0 54.5 58.3 7.60.0 12 0 Consult 2.7 7 1 63.6 58.3 7.73.1 9 0 Curious 3.9 7 1 66.7 55.6 7.90.0 11 0 Electric 3.8 8 0 54.5 72.7 7.53.4 8 0 Equal 4.2 5 0 50.0 62.5 7.70.0 11 0 Expect 4.7 6 1 55.6 54.5 7.60.0 11 0 Explain 4.4 7 0 50.0 45.5 8.12.8 9 0 Hostile 3.3 7 0 55.6 66.7 7.40.0 11 0 Inspire 1.7 7 0 50.0 54.5 7.83.0 10 0 Invite 2.5 6 1 44.4 50.0 7.80.2 10 1 Mature 2.9 6 2 55.6 50.0 7.42.8 8 0 Moral 4.2 5 2 62.5 62.5 7.21.3 8 1 Noble 2.8 5 1 50.0 37.5 7.50.7 8 0 Rapid 3.6 5 3 62.5 62.5 7.2





StabilityValidityPerfectionIntroductionAbsorptionAbilitySeverityLegalityDerivationDivinitySolidityAccusationAcidityAdaptationProvocationBrutalityFatalityDeprivationAdorationSanityVulgarityExpirationCompilationAspirationMeanSD

Opaque (+M+ApartmentOrganizeImportantCustomerFastenFigmentPenancePonderAwfulAuthorizeApplianceTenableMomentDamageManagePermitPeasantRampantWarrantPosterityWitnessFairyArmyBitterDrawerBellyTapestryCornerDentistChapterMessagePrincipalBeakerPartyGravityUniversityPassiveDepartmentPortableCrankyHostageDesignateGradualBackerCopiousAccordionLament2.7 9 0 Stable 3.3 6 1 44.4 44.4 7.71.9 8 0 Valid 2.7 5 1 62.5 62.5 8.02.4 10 0 Perfect 4.2 7 0 66.7 70.0 8.00.0 12 0 Introduce 3.1 9 0 54.5 66.7 8.11.4 10 0 Absorb 2.5 6 0 50.0 50.0 7.94.3 7 1 Able 5.8 4 3 28.6 28.6 7.11.4 8 0 Severe 3.6 6 1 50.0 62.5 7.60.2 8 0 Legal 4.2 5 1 62.5 62.5 7.20.2 10 0 Derive 2.1 6 0 40.0 50.0 7.20.9 8 0 Divine 2.9 6 2 50.0 62.5 7.30.5 8 1 Solid 3.8 5 0 50.0 62.5 7.31.8 10 0 Accuse 1.6 6 0 50.0 50.0 7.80.3 7 0 Acid 3.1 4 3 57.1 57.1 7.72.1 10 0 Adapt 2.4 5 2 55.6 45.5 7.40.0 11 0 Provoke 2.0 7 0 60.0 45.5 7.11.8 9 0 Brutal 2.6 6 0 55.6 66.7 7.5

0.2 8 0 Fatal 2.7 5 1 50.0 62.5 7.70.0 11 0 Deprive 0.0 7 0 50.0 50.0 7.61.0 9 0 Adore 1.3 5 3 50.0 44.4 7.81.8 6 1 Sane 2.1 4 18 33.3 50.0 7.80.7 9 0 Vulgar 2.2 6 0 55.6 66.7 8.0

0.6 10 0 Expire 0.3 6 2 44.4 50.0 8.00.0 11 0 Compile 0.3 7 0 50.0 54.5 7.40.6 10 0 Aspire 1.0 6 0 44.4 50.0 7.31.3 9.4 0.2 2.8 6.0 1.3 51.4 54.9 7.61.4 1.5 0.4 1.2 1.1 2.8 8.4 9.0 0.3

PS)3.8 9 0 Apart 4.7 5 0 55.6 55.6 2.02.6 8 0 Organ 2.6 5 0 71.4 62.5 1.55.9 9 0 Import 2.5 6 1 66.7 66.7 2.02.7 8 0 Custom 2.7 6 0 75.0 75.0 2.20.9 6 3 Fast 4.6 4 11 66.7 66.7 2.4

0.4 7 1 Fig 1.7 3 15 42.9 42.9 1.90.3 7 0 Pen 3.0 3 20 50.0 42.9 1.60.9 6 5 Pond 2.7 4 4 66.7 66.7 1.44.1 5 0 Awe 2.1 3 10 50.0 40.0 2.3

0.1 9 0 Author 3.4 6 0 71.4 66.7 2.50.5 9 0 Apply 3.9 5 3 57.1 44.4 2.30.5 7 0 Ten 5.4 3 16 50.0 42.9 1.45.8 6 0 Mom 1.7 3 9 50.0 50.0 1.33.9 6 0 Dam 2.1 3 11 60.0 50.0 1.53.6 6 1 Man 7.0 3 19 60.0 50.0 2.12.9 6 1 Perm 0.0 4 4 80.0 66.7 1.43.0 7 0 Peas 2.1 4 11 33.3 57.1 1.80.3 7 1 Ramp 1.5 4 8 57.1 57.1 1.91.9 7 0 War 5.8 3 15 50.0 42.9 1.71.0 9 0 Poster 1.8 6 6 66.7 66.7 2.03.1 7 3 Wit 2.5 3 12 50.0 42.9 1.52.4 5 4 Fair 4.5 4 4 75.0 80.0 1.94.7 4 2 Arm 4.7 3 5 75.0 75.0 1.93.6 6 8 Bits 3.5 4 15 60.0 50.0 1.62.7 6 1 Draw 4.1 4 5 60.0 66.7 1.92.8 5 7 Bell 3.7 4 13 75.0 80.0 1.50.8 8 0 Tape 3.3 4 10 37.5 50.0 2.34.6 6 1 Corn 3.2 4 10 66.7 66.7 1.51.9 7 0 Dent 1.3 4 14 57.1 57.1 1.84.7 7 2 Chap 3.1 4 6 50.0 57.1 1.34.2 7 1 Mess 3.3 4 7 60.0 57.1 1.33.5 9 0 Prince 3.5 6 1 62.5 55.6 1.70.2 6 3 Beak 1.6 4 11 60.0 66.7 1.95.9 5 6 Part 6.2 4 17 80.0 80.0 1.72.9 7 0 Grave 3.4 5 9 42.9 57.1 1.85.3 10 0 Universe 3.5 8 0 70.0 70.0 1.92.8 7 1 Pass 4.6 4 12 60.0 57.1 2.64.7 10 1 Depart 1.8 6 1 66.7 60.0 2.71.9 8 0 Port 3.3 4 12 57.1 50.0 2.70.0 6 2 Crank 0.8 5 6 83.3 83.3 2.60.8 7 1 Host 3.0 4 8 66.7 57.1 2.6

0.1 9 0 Design 4.4 6 1 50.0 66.7 2.52.6 7 0 Grade 2.6 5 7 42.9 57.1 2.6

0.4 6 4 Back 7.1 4 16 60.0 66.7 2.31.0 7 0 Copy 3.6 4 3 50.0 42.9 2.4

0.2 9 0 Accord 2.0 6 0 71.4 66.7 2.30.6 6 1 Lame 1.4 4 15 33.3 66.7 2.1


Appendix A (Continued)Prime Target Phon overlap Ortho overlap Sem Rel


MeanSD

Quasi-regulaCarefulCoverageVariousDeviantPublicityHighnessLovelyHealthPackageLatelyJointlyMomentousSensuousUsefulMeaninglesTastelessPayableCoolnessSleeplessReectorDarkenBreakagePartialColorationVanityCentralityCivilityConvexityRecitationFormalitySeniorityTreatmentVarietyPulsationBookerJubilantCoolantBusinessAlienateDresserStreamlineSalutationVitalityAdversityMindlessFruitfulFluidityMeanSD

PhonologicaPlanetFunkAgentSeatPawnPaintMastLawnDollarCellarMatchDragonLinenElectrodeEnterpriseBulletinStampedeSocketTentacle2.4 7.0 1.3 3.2 4.3 8.1 59.7 59.6 2.01.9 1.4 2.0 1.5 1.1 5.8 12.2 11.4 0.4

r (+M+PS)4.0 7 0 Care 5.2 4 22 60.0 57.1 6.42.4 8 0 Cover 4.7 5 10 83.3 62.5 6.74.9 7 0 Vary 3.1 4 3 50.0 42.9 6.91.7 7 1 Defy 1.5 4 3 28.6 28.6 6.93.1 9 0 Public 5.9 6 0 62.5 66.7 6.50.6 8 0 High 5.9 4 2 40.0 50.0 6.74.1 6 2 Love 5.9 4 12 60.0 66.7 5.94.9 6 2 Heal 1.5 4 15 50.0 66.7 5.92.8 7 0 Pack 3.3 4 15 75.0 57.1 5.32.5 6 1 Late 5.3 4 14 60.0 66.7 4.21.5 7 0 Joint 3.7 5 2 71.4 71.4 5.01.0 9 0 Moment 5.8 6 0 75.0 66.7 6.01.0 8 0 Sense 5.7 5 2 57.1 50.0 5.94.4 6 0 Use 6.2 3 0 40.0 50.0 6.3

s 0.0 11 0 Meaning 4.3 7 3 75.0 63.6 6.00.5 9 0 Taste 4.0 5 6 57.1 55.6 6.31.3 7 1 Pay 5.2 3 22 40.0 42.9 6.41.0 8 0 Cool 4.0 4 9 50.0 50.0 6.70.9 9 0 Sleep 4.8 5 5 57.1 55.6 6.6

0.4 9 0 Reect 3.2 7 1 87.5 77.8 6.90.1 6 1 Dark 5.2 4 10 80.0 57.1 7.0

0.2 8 0 Break 4.7 5 6 66.7 62.5 6.82.4 7 1 Part 6.2 4 17 50.0 57.1 6.10.0 10 0 Color 0.0 5 1 62.5 50.0 6.01.9 6 1 Vain 2.6 4 7 33.3 33.3 6.5

0.5 10 0 Central 4.8 7 0 70.0 70.0 6.80.1 8 0 Civil 4.2 5 2 62.5 62.5 6.50.0 9 0 Convex 0.1 6 1 66.7 66.7 6.7

0.6 10 0 Recite 1.0 6 1 44.4 50.0 6.91.6 9 1 Formal 4.0 6 2 66.7 66.7 6.40.3 9 0 Senior 3.9 6 1 66.7 66.7 6.94.2 9 0 Treat 3.6 5 2 50.0 55.6 7.04.1 7 0 Vary 3.1 4 3 42.9 42.9 6.6

0.8 9 0 Pulse 2.2 5 1 50.0 44.4 6.80.0 6 4 Book 5.6 4 12 60.0 66.7 3.70.1 8 0 Jubilee 0.5 7 0 62.5 62.5 4.6

1.1 7 0 Cool 4.0 4 9 50.0 57.1 5.25.5 8 1 Busy 4.1 4 4 50.0 37.5 3.8

0.2 8 0 Alien 2.8 5 1 71.4 62.5 5.11.5 7 2 Dress 4.4 5 5 66.7 71.4 4.9

0.9 10 0 Stream 3.6 6 2 62.5 60.0 3.60.2 10 0 Salute 1.8 6 0 62.5 50.0 6.61.9 8 0 Vital 3.8 5 0 50.0 62.5 6.3

0.1 9 0 Adverse 2.0 7 0 66.7 66.7 6.71.3 8 1 Mind 5.9 4 12 57.1 50.0 5.61.5 8 0 Fruit 4.0 5 0 57.1 62.5 4.50.4 8 0 Fluid 2.7 5 0 62.5 62.5 7.01.4 8.0 0.4 3.8 4.9 5.2 59.0 57.6 6.01.8 1.3 0.8 1.6 1.1 6.0 12.7 10.6 0.9

l (M+PS)3.2 6 2 Plan 4.6 4 3 66.7 66.7 1.40.0 4 7 Fun 3.8 3 13 75.0 75.0 2.33.8 5 0 Age 5.5 3 9 40.0 60.0 1.64.4 4 15 Sea 5.1 3 10 66.7 75.0 1.40.8 4 7 Paw 1.2 3 16 66.7 75.0 1.43.7 5 6 Pain 4.3 4 10 75.0 80.0 1.30.9 4 16 Mass 4.7 4 14 75.0 75.0 1.43.0 4 7 Law 5.1 3 16 66.7 75.0 1.42.7 6 1 Doll 2.9 4 11 60.0 66.7 1.52.3 6 1 Cell 3.6 4 10 60.0 66.7 3.44.0 5 7 Mat 2.0 3 22 66.7 60.0 1.52.0 6 0 Drag 2.9 4 7 66.7 66.7 1.52.9 5 4 Line 5.4 4 22 40.0 80.0 1.90.1 9 0 Elect 1.6 5 2 62.5 55.6 1.83.4 10 0 Enter 3.9 5 2 55.6 50.0 1.91.4 8 0 Bullet 2.5 6 4 71.4 75.0 2.20.4 8 0 Stamp 2.6 5 3 71.4 62.5 2.91.6 6 3 Sock 1.1 4 12 60.0 66.7 1.80.0 8 0 Tent 3.6 4 15 66.7 50.0 1.4





Market 4.9 6 2 Mark 4.4 4 12 80.0 66.7 1.4DialectTermiteCardiacBulletBlanketRocketSaddleWillowPillowNeedleAspirinBarnFreakKeepPanelFarmBeefTentHeavenCountyTinselSevereMeanSD

Semantic (FortuneCleanConstructJacketBattleTrembleHonorCorridorDominantDetergentEvidencePursueGambleStomachSweetProfessorMarriageDoctorLemonBrotherDiseaseNephewAncientAutomobileBreezeCartonConcealForestIdeaImitateLargeInjuryIntelligentCrookedCelebrityFastRotateAromaTrashSofaChairDrenchCorpseProtBlanketFireDestroy1.3 7 0 Dial 1.5 4 4 50.0 57.1 1.50.3 7 0 Term 4.4 4 3 80.0 57.1 1.41.0 7 0 Car 5.6 3 18 50.0 42.9 1.32.5 6 4 Bull 3.2 4 15 60.0 66.7 1.62.8 7 0 Blank 2.9 5 6 71.4 71.4 1.82.1 6 6 Rock 4.4 4 12 60.0 57.1 1.62.2 6 2 Sad 3.8 3 17 75.0 50.0 1.41.3 6 3 Will 7.7 4 16 75.0 66.7 1.72.6 6 2 Pill 2.6 4 14 75.0 66.7 1.72.4 6 0 Need 6.1 4 7 75.0 66.7 1.51.1 7 0 Aspire 1.0 6 0 66.7 71.4 1.62.3 4 12 Bar 4.2 3 16 75.0 75.0 1.91.6 5 3 Free 5.3 4 3 75.0 60.0 1.55.9 4 9 Key 4.3 3 5 66.7 50.0 1.83.0 5 1 Pan 3.4 3 19 75.0 60.0 1.34.2 4 6 Far 6.2 3 17 75.0 75.0 2.12.8 4 6 Bee 1.9 3 13 66.7 75.0 1.73.6 4 15 Ten 5.4 3 16 75.0 75.0 1.43.6 6 2 Heavy 4.9 5 2 75.0 66.7 1.43.8 6 2 Count 4.4 5 3 80.0 83.3 1.70.1 6 0 Tin 3.4 3 17 60.0 50.0 2.93.6 6 1 Sever 0.7 5 6 80.0 83.3 2.52.4 5.8 3.6 3.8 3.9 10.5 67.5 66.1 1.71.5 1.5 4.4 1.6 0.8 6.1 9.9 10.1 0.5

MP+S)3.4 7 0 Wealth 4.1 6 1 0.0 0.0 7.84.5 5 3 Wash 3.7 4 12 0.0 0.0 7.42.3 9 0 Build 4.3 5 2 0.0 0.0 8.23.5 6 2 Coat 4.0 4 9 20.0 0.0 8.24.3 6 3 Fight 4.6 5 8 25.0 0.0 8.01.3 7 0 Shiver 1.5 6 2 0.0 0.0 7.20.0 5 1 Glory 3.1 5 0 25.0 0.0 6.93.3 8 0 Passage 3.6 7 1 0.0 0.0 7.23.2 8 0 Supreme 3.2 7 0 0.0 0.0 7.41.6 9 1 Soap 3.0 4 6 0.0 0.0 7.85.0 8 0 Proof 3.4 5 0 0.0 0.0 8.32.8 6 0 Follow 4.5 6 3 0.0 0.0 6.81.6 6 2 Risk 4.2 4 5 0.0 0.0 7.03.7 7 0 Belly 2.8 5 7 0.0 0.0 8.13.8 5 5 Candy 1.8 5 7 0.0 0.0 7.24.3 9 1 College 4.3 7 1 0.0 0.0 6.74.5 8 1 Wedding 3.5 7 4 0.0 12.5 7.84.9 6 0 Nurse 3.5 5 2 0.0 0.0 7.22.6 5 1 Sour 2.4 4 11 0.0 0.0 7.14.4 7 1 Sister 4.4 6 2 16.7 0.0 7.04.1 7 0 Cancer 4.3 6 4 0.0 0.0 7.62.0 6 0 Niece 1.6 5 1 25.0 16.7 7.14.4 7 0 Old 6.6 3 1 0.0 0.0 7.92.7 10 0 Car 5.6 3 18 0.0 0.0 8.42.4 6 2 Wind 4.7 4 12 0.0 0.0 7.51.0 6 2 Box 4.4 3 11 0.0 0.0 7.12.5 7 0 Hide 3.5 4 10 0.0 0.0 8.04.2 6 0 Woods 3.5 5 6 0.0 16.7 7.75.6 4 0 Notion 3.6 6 4 0.0 0.0 7.61.7 7 0 Copy 3.6 4 3 0.0 0.0 7.85.9 5 2 Huge 4.7 4 1 25.0 0.0 8.33.1 6 1 Hurt 4.1 4 4 16.7 0.0 8.00.0 11 0 Smart 3.1 5 1 10.0 0.0 8.31.7 7 2 Bent 3.7 4 14 0.0 0.0 6.90.9 9 0 Star 4.0 4 7 0.0 0.0 7.74.6 4 11 Quick 4.2 5 2 0.0 0.0 8.21.2 6 0 Spin 2.1 4 5 0.0 0.0 8.01.1 5 0 Smell 4.1 5 5 0.0 0.0 8.11.3 5 2 Rubbish 2.9 7 0 25.0 0.0 7.33.0 4 3 Couch 2.2 5 6 0.0 25.0 8.24.7 5 2 Stool 2.2 5 3 0.0 0.0 7.20.0 6 2 Soak 1.9 4 3 0.0 0.0 7.92.3 6 0 Mummy 2.5 5 4 0.0 0.0 6.83.6 6 0 Gain 3.9 4 8 0.0 0.0 7.72.8 7 0 Sheet 3.5 5 5 14.3 0.0 7.25.0 4 15 Smoke 4.1 5 4 0.0 0.0 7.23.7 7 0 Break 4.7 5 6 0.0 0.0 7.2





Water 3 0.0 0.0 7.2Place 1 0.0 0.0 8.1Happy 0Mean 4SD 4

References

Allen,M., & Barepresenta46, 70572

Baayen, R. H.,Philadelph

Badecker, W.,output sys

Basnight-Browgual and bto form simLanguage,

Bentin, S., &semanticdence fro693711.

Bentin, S., McCsion and se60, 34335

Bodner, G. E., &relatednesReview, 10

Bozic, M., ML. K. (200relates of1464147

Brown, C., & Hfrom mask

Brown, C., Hagysis of visu

Coltheart, M.,lexicon. InAcademic

Davis, C. J. (20psycholing

Deacon, D., Heindices ofthe N400137146.

de Groot, A.proportionof prime253280.

De Diego BalagMorpholoular verb p

Devlin, J. T., Jaogy and thSciences, 1

Diependaele, Kpriming: Uearly word

Drews, E., & Zvisual worand Perfor

Feldman, L. B.shared meMemory, a

Feldman, L. B.cessing: Paare forwarCognition,

Feldman, L. B.,Lexical rep112.

Feldman, L. B.phologicalA violationBulletin an

Feldman, L. B.Task and p

, L. B.tion,9.K. I.,d ste561.K. I.,hicallrimenC.A., Npholoory a

, Deutds in aory aDeutslogicars. M

, Forstebrew. Journ856.T., &

n dur199an, L

nologiist app345.

ger, Mpriminal ofb, P. J.ntial ab, P. J.ecisioitive Pugiokal mouistics, M. Fn inju, 96, 7ak, J.he aceven

964.ch, Mactivaviden5., S., &

ly rela414., Joanatistic., & Jo400 in139., & F

in langa, A.,nal of., Claorth

668n, M.,2007). Recognition of morphologically complex words in nish: Evidenceevent- related potentials. Brain Research, 1148, 123137.

n, M., Vorobyev, V. A., Hugdahl, K., Tuokkola, T., & Laine, M. (2006). Neuralelates of morphological decomposition in morphologically rich language:MRI study. Brain and Language, 98, 182193.6.1 5 7 Steam 2.9 56.3 5 4 Location 2.8 84.9 5 2 Cheerful 2.9 83.2 6.4 1.6 3.6 5.01.6 1.6 2.8 1.0 1.2

decker,W. (2002). Inectional regularity: Probing the nature of lexicaltion in a cross-modal priming task. Journal of Memory and Language,2.Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database.ia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.& Caramazza, A. (1991). Morphological composition in the lexicaltem. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 8, 335367.n, D. M., Chen, L., Hua, S., Kostic, A., & Feldman, L. B. (2007). Monolin-ilingual recognition of regular and irregular English verbs: Sensitivityilarity varies with rst language experience. Journal of Memory and

57, 6580.Felman, L. B. (1990). The contribution of morphological and

relatedness to repetition priming at short and long lags: Evi-m Hebrew. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42A,

arthy, G., & Wood, C. C. (1985). Event-related potentials, lexical deci-mantic priming. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology,5.Mason, M. E. J. (2003). Beyond spreading activation: An inuence of

s proportion on masked semantic priming. Psychonomic Bulletin and, 645652.arslen-Wilson, W. D., Stamatakis, E. A., Davis, M. H., & Tyler,7). Differentiation morphology, form, and meaning: Neural cor-morphological complexity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19,

5.agoort, P. (1993). The processing nature of the N400: The evidenceed priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 3444.oort, P., & Chwilla, D. J. (2000). An event-related brain potential anal-al word priming effects. Brain and Language, 72, 158190.

Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. T., & Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internalS. Dornic (Ed.),Attention and performance VI (pp. 535555). NewYork:Press.05). N-WATCH: A program for deriving neighborhood size and otheruistic statistics. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 6570.witt, S., Yang, C. M., & Nagata, M. (2000). Event-related potentials

semantic priming using masked and unmasked words: Evidence thatdoes not reect a post-lexical process. Cognitive Brain Research, 9,

M. B. (1984). Primed lexical decision: Combined effects of theof related prime-target pairs and the stimulus-onset asynchronyand target. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A,

uer, R., Sebastian-Galles, N., Diaz, B., & Rodriguez-Fornells, A. (2005).gical processing in early bilinguals: An ERP study of regular and irreg-rocessing. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 312327.mison, H. L., Matthews, P. M., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2004). Morphol-e internal structure of words. Proceedings of the National Academy of01, 1498414988.., Sandra,D., &Grainger, J. (2005).Maskedcross-modalmorphologicalnraveling morpho-orthographic and morpho-semantic inuences inrecognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 75114.

witserlood, P. (1995). Morphological and orthographic similarity ind recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perceptionmance, 21, 10981116.(2000). Are morphological effects distinguishable from the effects ofaning and shared form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,nd Cognition, 26, 14311444., & Basnight-Brown, D. M. (2008). List context fosters semantic pro-rallels betweensemantic andmorphological facilitationwhenprimesd masked. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and34, 680687.& Fowler, C. A. (1987). The inected noun system in Serbo-Croatian:resentation of morphological structure. Memory and Cognition, 15,

, OConnor, P. A., & Moscoso del Prado Martin, F. (2009). Early mor-processing is morphosemantic and not simply morpho-orthgraphic:of from-ten-meaning accounts of word recognition. Psychonomic

d Review, 16, 684691., & Prostko, B. (2002). Graded aspects of morphological processing:rocessing time. Brain and Language, 81, 1227.

Feldmandura333

Forster,boun539

Forster,grapExpe

Fowler,morMem

Frost, R.worMem

Frost, R.,phofacto

Frost, R.of Htion829

Gold, B.sitio1983

Gonnermphotion323

HambertionJour

Holcompote

Holcomcal dCogn

Ito, T., StionLing

Joanissebraience

Jescheniing twith951

Kellenbaaretial e677

Kempleyular73, 4

Kielar, Aor st

Kielar, Aby N1373

Kutas, Muse

LaudannJour

Lavric, Afrom19, 8

LehtoneM. (from

LehtonecorrAn f0.0 0.0 7.9.7 4.1 1.4 7.6.1 8.5 5.0 0.5

, & Soltano, E. G. (1999). Morphological priming: The role of primesemantic transparency, and afx position. Brain and Language, 68,

& Azuma, T. (2000). Masked priming for prexed words withms: Does submit prime permit? Language and Cognitive Processes, 15,

Davis, C., Schoknecht, C., & Carter, R. (1987). Masked priming withy related forms: Repetition or partial activation? Quarterly Journal oftal Psychology, 39A, 211251.apps, S. E., & Feldman, L. (1985). Relations among regular and irregulargically related words in the lexicon as revealed by repetition priming.nd Cognition, 13, 241255.sch, A., & Forster, K. I. (2000). Decomposing morphologically complexnonlinear morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,

nd Cognition, 26, 751765.ch, A., Gilboa,O., Tennenbaum,M., &Marslen-Wilson,W. (2000).Mor-l priming: Dissociation of phonological, semantic, and morphologicalemory and Cognition, 28, 12771288.er, K. I., & Deutsch, A. (1997). What we can learn from the morphology? A masked-priming investigation of morphological representa-al of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23,

Rastle, K. (2007). Neural correlates of morphological decompo-ing visual word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19,3.. M., Seidenberg, M. S., & Andersen, E. S. (2007). Graded semantic andcal similarity effects in priming: Evidence for a distributed connec-roach tomorphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136,

., & Friedman, D. (1992). Event related potentials correlates of repeti-ng and stimulus classication in young,middle-aged and older adults.Gerontology, 47, 395405.(1988). Automatic and attentional processing: An event-related brainnalysis of semantic priming. Brain and Language, 35, 6685., & Neville, H. (1990). Auditory and visual semantic priming in lexi-n: A comparison using event-related brain potentials. Language androcesses, 5, 281312.

a, Y., & Hagiwara, T. (1996). Psychological status of rules in deriva-rphology: Evidence from Japanese nominal sufxation. Metropolitan, 16, 1830.., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Impairments in verb morphology afterry: A connectionist model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-5927597.D., Schriefers, H., Garrett, M. F., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Explor-tivation of semantic and phonological codes during speech planningt-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14,

. L., Wijers, A. A., & Mulder, G. (2000). Visual semantic featurested during the processing of concrete words: Event-related poten-ce for perceptual semantic priming. Cognitive and Brain Research, 10,

Morton, T. J. (1982). The effects of priming with regularly and irreg-ted words in auditory word recognition. British Journal of Psychology,54.isse, A. F., & Hare, M. L. (2008). Priming English past tense verbs: Ruless? Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 327346.anisse, M. F. (2010). Graded effects of regularity in language revealeddices of morphological priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22,8.edermeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memoryuage comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463470.Badecker, W., & Caramazza, A. (1989). Priming homographic stems.Memory and Language, 28, 531546.pp, A., & Rastle, K. (2007). ERP evidence of morphological analysisography: A masked priming study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,77.Cunillera, T., Rodriguez-Fornells, A., Hulten, A., Tuomainen, J., & Laine,


Longtin, C. M., Segui, J., & Halle, P. A. (2003). Morphological priming without mor-phological relationship. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 313334.

Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Bozic, M., & Randall, B. (2008). Early decomposition in visualword recognition: Dissociating morphology, form and meaning. Language andCognitive Processes, 23, 394421.

Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (1997). Dissociating types of mental computa-tions. Nature, 387, 592594.

Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L. K., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology andmeaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101, 333.

Marslen-Wilson, W., & Zhou, X. (1999). Abstractness, allomorphy, and lexical archi-tecture. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 321352.

McClelland, J. L., & Patterson, K. (2002). Words or rules cannot exploit the regularityin exceptions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 464465.

McCormick, S. F., Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Is there a fete in fetish? Effectsof orthographic opacity on morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual wordrecognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 307326.

Morris, J., Frank, T., Grainger, J., & Holcomb, P. J. (2007). Semantic transparencyand masked morphological priming: An ERP investigation. Psychophysiology, 44,506521.

Morris, J., Grainger, J., & Holcomb, P. J. (2008). An electrophysiological investigation fearly effects ofmaskedmorphological priming. Language andCognitive Processes,23, 10211056.

Mnte, T. F., Say, T., Clahsen,H., Schiltz, K., &Kutas,M. (1999).Decompositionofmor-phologically complex words in English: Evidence from event related potentials.Cognitive Brain Research, 7, 241253.

Murrell, G. A., & Morton, J. (1974). Word recognition and morphemic structure.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 963968.

Napps, S. E. (1989). Morphemic relationship in the lexicon: Are they distinct fromsemantic and formal relationship? Memory and Cognition, 17, 729739.

Napps, S. E., & Fowler, C. A. (1987). Formal relationship among words and the orga-nization of the mental lexicon. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 16, 257272.

Orsoloni, M., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1997). Universals of morphological represen-tation: Evidence from Italian. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 147.

Pastizzo, M. J., & Feldman, L. B. (2009). Multiple dimensions of relatedness amongwords. The Mental Lexicon, 4, 125.

Pastizzo, M. J., & Feldman, L. B. (2002). Discrepancies between orthographic andunrelatedbaselines inmaskedprimingundermine adecompositional account ofmorphological facilitation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memoryand Cognition, 28, 244249.

Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. Trends inCognitive Sciences, 8, 456463.

Plaut, D. C., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Are non-semantic morphological effectsincompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing?Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 445485.

Plunkett, K., & Marchman, V. (1993). From rote learning to system building: Acquir-ing verb m

Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysisof orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 942971.

Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (2000). Morphologicaland semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study. Languageand Cognitive Processes, 15, 507537.

Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brothers brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visualword recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin andReview, 11, 10901098.

Rodriguez-Fornells, A., Mnte, T. F., & Clahsen, H. (2002). Morphological primingin Spanish verb forms: An ERP repetition priming study. Journal of CognitiveNeuroscience, 14, 443454.

Rueckl, J. G., &Aicher, K.A. (2008). AreCorner andBrothermorphologically complex?Not in the long term. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 9721001.

Rueckl, J. G., Mikolinski, M., Raveh, M., Miner, C. S., & Mars, F. (1997). Morphologicalpriming, fragment completion, and connectionist networks. Journal of Memoryand Language, 36, 382405.

Rumelhart, D. E, & McClelland, J. L. (1986). On learning the past tenses of Englishverbs. In D. Rumelhart, & J. L. McClelland (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1995). Modeling morphological processing. In L.B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 131154).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stanners, R. F., Neiser, J. J., Hernon, W. P., & Hall, R. (1979). Memory representationformorphologically relatedwords. Journal of Verbal Learning andVerbal Behavior,18, 399412.

Stolz, J. A., & Besner, D. (1998). Levels of representation in visual word recog-nition: A dissociation between morphological and semantic processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24,16421655.

Stolz, J. A., & Feldman, L. B. (1995). The role of orthographic and semantic trans-parency of the base morpheme in morphological processing. In L. B. Feldman(Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 109129). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Taft, M. (1988). A morphological decomposition model of lexical representation.Linguistics, 26, 657667.

Taft,M., & Forster, K. L. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prexedwords. Journalof Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 638647.

Tsapkini, K., Kehayia, E., & Jarema, G. (1999). Does phonological change play a rolein the recognition of derived forms across modalities. Brain and Language, 68,318323.

Tweedy, J. R., Lapinski, R. H., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1997). Semantic context effectson word recognition: Inuence of varying the proportion of items presented inan appropriate context. Memory and Cognition, 5, 8489.

Vannest, J., Polk, T. A., & Lewis, R. L. (2005). Dual-route processing of complexwords:New FMRI evidence fromderivational sufxation. Cognitive, Affective and Behav-

Neuroorphology in children and connectionist nets. Cognition, 48, 2169. ioral science, 5, 6776.

The role of semantic and phonological factors in word recognition: An ERP cross-modal priming study of derivational morpho...IntroductionTheories of morphological representationMorphology as a convergence of codesPriming studies of morphological processingPresent study

MethodsParticipantsMaterialsBehavioral task and EEG recording

ResultsBehavioral resultsERP resultsEarly N400 primingEffects of semantic and phonological overlap

Late N400 primingEffects of semantic and phonological overlap

DiscussionConclusionsAcknowledgmentsReferencesReferences

The role of semantic and phonological factors in word recognition: An ERP cross-modal priming study...

Documents

Transcript of The role of semantic and phonological factors in word recognition: An ERP cross-modal priming study...