Detection of deviance in Japanese kanji compound words.
MEG
automatic processing
kanji compounds
lexical processing
parafoveal vision
reading ability
visual word processing
Journal
Frontiers in human neuroscience
ISSN: 1662-5161
Titre abrégé: Front Hum Neurosci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101477954
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
06
04
2022
accepted:
20
07
2022
entrez:
1
9
2022
pubmed:
2
9
2022
medline:
2
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Reading fluency is based on the automatic visual recognition of words. As a manifestation of the automatic processing of words, an automatic deviance detection of visual word stimuli can be observed in the early stages of visual recognition. To clarify whether this phenomenon occurs with Japanese kanji compounds-since their lexicality is related to semantic association-we investigated the brain response by utilizing three types of deviants: differences in font type, lexically correct or incorrect Japanese kanji compound words and pseudo-kanji characters modified from correct and incorrect compounds. We employed magnetoencephalography (MEG) to evaluate the spatiotemporal profiles of the related brain regions. The study included 22 adult native Japanese speakers (16 females). The abovementioned three kinds of stimuli containing 20% deviants were presented during the MEG measurement. Activity in the occipital pole region of the brain was observed upon the detection of font-type deviance within 250 ms of stimulus onset. Although no significant activity upon detecting lexically correct/incorrect kanji compounds or pseudo-kanji character deviations was observed, the activity in the posterior transverse region of the collateral sulcus (pCoS)-which is a fusiform neighboring area-was larger when detecting lexically correct kanji compounds than when detecting pseudo-kanji characters. Taken together, these results support the notion that the automatic detection of deviance in kanji compounds may be limited to a low-level feature, such as the stimulus stroke thickness.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36046210
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.913945
pmc: PMC9421146
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
913945Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Egashira, Kaga, Gunji, Kita, Kimura, Hironaga, Takeichi, Hayashi, Kaneko, Takahashi, Hanakawa, Okada and Inagaki.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Brain Stimul. 2019 Jul - Aug;12(4):930-937
pubmed: 30826318
Sci Rep. 2018 Jan 22;8(1):1289
pubmed: 29358675
Neuroreport. 2011 Aug 3;22(11):535-8
pubmed: 21847819
Neuroreport. 2001 Feb 12;12(2):207-13
pubmed: 11209922
Psychophysiology. 2015 Oct;52(10):1361-74
pubmed: 26289548
J Neurol Sci. 2006 Aug 15;247(1):81-92
pubmed: 16720031
PLoS Biol. 2020 Sep 8;18(9):e3000833
pubmed: 32898188
Hum Brain Mapp. 2014 Jun;35(6):2754-67
pubmed: 24038902
Neuroimage. 2010 Oct 15;53(1):1-15
pubmed: 20547229
Clin Neurophysiol. 2013 Sep;124(9):1737-44
pubmed: 23688918
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2018 Apr;44(4):645-654
pubmed: 28956945
Neuroimage. 2008 Apr 15;40(3):1350-61
pubmed: 18272399
Exp Brain Res. 2019 May;237(5):1179-1194
pubmed: 30806740
Neuroimage. 2006 May 1;30(4):1383-400
pubmed: 16460964
Nat Neurosci. 2001 Jul;4(7):752-8
pubmed: 11426233
Biol Psychol. 2017 Apr;125:45-57
pubmed: 28257807
Psychol Rev. 2001 Jan;108(1):204-56
pubmed: 11212628
Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Oct 09;8:763
pubmed: 25346672
Neurosci Lett. 2010 Nov 26;485(3):198-203
pubmed: 20849925
Neuroimage. 2016 May 15;132:320-333
pubmed: 26926792
Neuroimage. 2020 Jul 1;214:116727
pubmed: 32173410
Clin Neurophysiol. 2011 Oct;122(10):1929-42
pubmed: 21498109
Sci Rep. 2017 Sep 12;7(1):11400
pubmed: 28900289
Nat Commun. 2020 Jan 16;11(1):321
pubmed: 31949153
Cortex. 2021 Aug;141:497-521
pubmed: 34166905
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2012 Jan;74(1):5-35
pubmed: 22042596
Brain Topogr. 2004 Summer;16(4):269-75
pubmed: 15379226
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Mar;5(3):389-398
pubmed: 33257877
Nat Commun. 2012;3:1284
pubmed: 23250414
Nat Commun. 2021 Sep 2;12(1):5234
pubmed: 34475391
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Oct 16;115(42):E9981-E9990
pubmed: 30224475
Psychophysiology. 2020 Jun;57(6):e13576
pubmed: 32293040
Trends Cogn Sci. 2011 Jun;15(6):254-62
pubmed: 21592844
Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Jul;7(7):293-299
pubmed: 12860187
Brain. 1999 Nov;122 ( Pt 11):2119-32
pubmed: 10545397
Brain Sci. 2020 Dec 29;11(1):
pubmed: 33383778
Neurol Clin Neurophysiol. 2004 Nov 30;2004:35
pubmed: 16012635
Clin Neurophysiol. 2014 Dec;125(12):2404-12
pubmed: 24813089
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Aug 09;7:421
pubmed: 23950740
Hum Brain Mapp. 2022 Feb 15;43(3):1157-1173
pubmed: 34716977
Int J Psychophysiol. 2012 Feb;83(2):144-55
pubmed: 22137965
Neuropsychologia. 1971 Mar;9(1):97-113
pubmed: 5146491
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1985 Nov;62(6):437-48
pubmed: 2415340
Psychophysiology. 2010 Sep;47(5):905-12
pubmed: 20230497
Psychophysiology. 2008 May;45(3):445-57
pubmed: 18221444
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Aug 7;115(32):E7595-E7604
pubmed: 30038000
Neuroimage. 2012 Aug 1;62(1):381-93
pubmed: 22521255
Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2021 Apr;48:100927
pubmed: 33556881
Read Writ. 2018;31(3):503-531
pubmed: 29456291
Neuroimage. 2016 Apr 15;130:175-183
pubmed: 26854558
Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Dec 1;4(12):463-470
pubmed: 11115760
Brain Topogr. 2014 Sep;27(5):648-51
pubmed: 24327314
Neurosci Lett. 2020 Apr 1;723:134841
pubmed: 32081567
Neuroimage. 2012 Aug 15;62(2):774-81
pubmed: 22248573
J Exp Psychol. 1969 Aug;81(2):275-80
pubmed: 5811803
Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Sep 16;8:666
pubmed: 25278859