Tracking the brain signature of (mis)spelled logotypes via letter transpositions and replacements.
Brand names
ERP
Letter transposition
Orthography
Visual word recognition
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Aug 2024
09 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
18
03
2024
accepted:
06
08
2024
medline:
10
8
2024
pubmed:
10
8
2024
entrez:
9
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
All leading models of visual word recognition assume a hierarchical process that progressively converts the visual input into abstract letter and word representations. However, the results from recent behavioral studies suggest that the mental representations of words with a highly consistent visual format, such as logotypes, may comprise not only purely abstract information but also perceptual information. This hypothesis would explain why participants often misperceive transposed-letter misspellings with the original base words to a larger degree in logotypes (e.g., SASMUNG, but not SARVUNG, is perceived as SAMSUNG) than in common words. The present experiment examined the electrophysiological signature behind the identification of correctly spelled and misspelled logotypes (via letter transposition or replacement) in an ERP go/no-go semantic categorization experiment. Results showed that N400 amplitudes for transposed-letter misspelled logotypes (SASMUNG) and intact logotypes (SAMSUNG) did not differ significantly across various time windows (until 600 ms), whereas replacement-letter misspelled logotypes (SARVUNG) yielded consistently larger N400 amplitudes. These findings reveal that the mental representations of logotypes are particularly resistant to minor orthographic changes, which has important theoretical and applied (e.g., marketing) implications.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39122920
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-69525-x
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-69525-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
18538Subventions
Organisme : Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
ID : PID2020-116740GB-I00
Organisme : Generalitat Valenciana
ID : CIAICO/2021/172
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Dehaene, S., Cohen, L., Sigman, M. & Vinckier, F. The neural code for written words: A proposal. Trends Cognit. Sci. 9, 335–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.05.004 (2005).
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.05.004
Grainger, J., Rey, A. & Dufau, S. Letter perception: From pixels to pandemonium. Trends Cognit. Sci. 12, 381–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.06.006 (2008).
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.06.006
Grainger, J. Orthographic processing: A ‘mid-level’ vision of reading. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 71, 335–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1314515 (2018).
doi: 10.1080/17470218.2017.1314515
Gontijo, P. F. G., & Zhang, S. The mental representation of brand names: Are brand names a class by themselves? In T. M. Lowrey (Ed.), Psycholinguistic phenomena in marketing communications, 23–37 (2007).
Pathak, A., Velasco, C. & Calvert, G. A. Implicit and explicit identification of counterfeit brand logos based on logotype transposition. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 28, 747–757. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2018-1921 (2019).
doi: 10.1108/JPBM-06-2018-1921
Pathak, A., Velasco, C. & Calvert, G. A. Identifying counterfeit brand logos: On the importance of the first and last letters of a logotype. Eur. J. Mark. 53, 2109–2125. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-09-2017-0586 (2019).
doi: 10.1108/EJM-09-2017-0586
Labusch, M., Duñabeitia, J. A. & Perea, M. Visual word identification beyond common words: The role of font and letter case in brand names. Mem. Cogn. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-024-01570-3 (2024).
doi: 10.3758/s13421-024-01570-3
Perea, M., Jiménez, M., Talero, F. & López-Cañada, S. Letter-case information and the identification of brand names. Br. J. Psychol. 106, 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12071 (2015).
doi: 10.1111/bjop.12071
pubmed: 24766365
Perea, M., Baciero, A., Rocabado, F., & Marcet, A. Does the cowl make the monk? Detecting counterfeits in brand names vs. logos. Psychon. Bull. Rev., 28, 969–977. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01863-z (2021).
Perea, M., Baciero, A., Labusch, M., Fernández-López, M. & Marcet, A. Are brand names special words? Letter visual-similarity affects the identification of brand names, but not common words. Br. J. Psychol. 113, 835–852. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12557 (2022).
doi: 10.1111/bjop.12557
pubmed: 35107840
pmcid: 9545185
Rocabado, F., Perea, M. & Duñabeitia, J. A. Misspelled Logotypes: The hidden threat to brand identity. Sci. Rep. 13, 17817. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45213-0 (2023).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-45213-0
pubmed: 37857797
pmcid: 10587100
Perea, M. & Lupker, S. J. Can CANISO activate CASINO? Transposed-letter similarity effects with nonadjacent letter positions. J. Mem. Lang. 51, 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.00 (2004).
doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.00
Vergara-Martínez, M., Perea, M., Gómez, P. & Swaab, T. Y. ERP correlates of letter identity and letter position are modulated by lexical frequency. Brain Lang. 125, 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.12.009 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.12.009
pubmed: 23454070
pmcid: 3612367
Gomez, P., Ratcliff, R. & Perea, M. The overlap model: A model of letter position coding. Psychol. Rev. 115, 577–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012667 (2008).
doi: 10.1037/a0012667
pubmed: 18729592
pmcid: 2597794
Marcet, A., Perea, M., Baciero, A. & Gomez, P. Can letter position encoding be modified by visual perceptual elements?. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 72, 1344–1353. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818789876 (2018).
doi: 10.1177/1747021818789876
Mirault, J. & Grainger, J. Single word reading in the “real” world: Effects of transposed-letters. J. Cogn. 4, 27. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.160 (2021).
doi: 10.5334/joc.160
pubmed: 34046545
pmcid: 8139302
Forster, K. I., Davis, C., Schoknecht, C. & Carter, R. Masked priming with graphemically related forms: Repetition or partial activation?. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 39, 211–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748708401785 (1987).
doi: 10.1080/14640748708401785
Duñabeitia, J. A., Dimitropoulou, M., Grainger, J., Hernández, J. A. & Carreiras, M. Differential sensitivity of letters, numbers, and symbols to character transpositions. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 24, 1610–1624. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00180 (2012).
doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00180
pubmed: 22185490
Massol, S. & Grainger, J. Effects of horizontal displacement and inter-character spacing on transposed-character effects in same-different matching. Plos One 17, e0265442. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265442 (2022).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265442
pubmed: 35312705
pmcid: 8936455
Luck, S. J. An introduction to the event-related potential technique (MIT press, 2014).
Logan, G. D. Serial order in perception, memory, and action. Psychol. Rev. 128, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000253 (2021).
Bentin, S., McCarthy, G. & Wood, C. C. Event-related potentials, lexical decision and semantic priming. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 60, 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(85)90008-2 (1985).
doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(85)90008-2
pubmed: 2579801
Carreiras, M., Vergara, M. & Barber, H. Early ERP effects of syllabic processing during visual word recognition. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 17, 1803–1817. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892905774589217 (2005).
doi: 10.1162/089892905774589217
pubmed: 16269115
Holcomb, P. J. Semantic priming and stimulus degradation: Implications for the role of the N400 in language processing. Psychophysiology 30, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1993.tb03204.x (1993).
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1993.tb03204.x
pubmed: 8416062
Vergara-Martínez, M. & Swaab, T. Y. Orthographic neighborhood effects as a function of word frequency: An event-related potential study. Psychophysiology 49, 1277–1289. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01410.x (2012).
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01410.x
pubmed: 22803612
pmcid: 3431195
Norris, D. & Kinoshita, S. Reading through a noisy channel: Why there’s nothing special about the perception of orthography. Psychol. Rev. 119, 517–545. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028450 (2012).
doi: 10.1037/a0028450
pubmed: 22663560
Carreiras, M., Vergara, M. & Perea, M. ERP correlates of transposed-letter similarity effects: Are consonants processed differently from vowels?. Neurosci. Lett. 419, 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2007.04.053 (2007).
doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2007.04.053
pubmed: 17507160
Clear, M. Own-label ‘copycat’ products: Can you spot the difference? Which? (2013). https://www.which.co.uk/news/2013/04/own-label-copycat-products-can-you-spot-the-difference-316370 .
Jensen, K. M. & MacDonald, J. A. Towards thoughtful planning of ERP studies: How participants, trials, and effect magnitude interact to influence statistical power across seven ERP components. Psychophysiology 60, e14245. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14245 (2023).
doi: 10.1111/psyp.14245
pubmed: 36577739
Oldfield, R. C. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9, 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 (1971).
doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4
pubmed: 5146491
Guthrie, D. & Buchwald, J. S. Significance testing of difference potentials. Psychophysiology 28, 240–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1991.tb00417.x (1991).
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1991.tb00417.x
pubmed: 1946890
Vergara-Martínez, M., Comesaña, M. & Perea, M. The ERP signature of the contextual diversity effect in visual word recognition. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 17, 461–474. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-016-0491-7 (2017).
doi: 10.3758/s13415-016-0491-7
pubmed: 28050804
Vergara-Martínez, M., Gomez, P. & Perea, M. Should I stay or should I go? An ERP analysis of two-choice versus go/no-go response procedures in lexical decision. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 46, 2034–2048. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000942 (2020).
doi: 10.1037/xlm0000942
pubmed: 32730055
Van Petten, C., Kutas, M., Kluender, R., Mitchiner, M. & McIsaac, H. Fractionating the word repetition effect with event-related potentials. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 3, 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1991.3.2.131 (1991).
doi: 10.1162/jocn.1991.3.2.131
pubmed: 23972089
Laszlo, S., Stites, M. & Federmeier, K. D. Won’t get fooled again: An event-related potential study of task and repetition effects on the semantic processing of items without semantics. Lang. Cogn. Proc. 27, 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.606667 (2012).
doi: 10.1080/01690965.2011.606667
Gontijo, P. F., Rayman, J., Zhang, S. & Zaidel, E. How brand names are special: brands, words, and hemispheres. Brain Lang. 82, 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00036-6 (2002).
doi: 10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00036-6
pubmed: 12160528
Dunn, B. R., Dunn, D. A., Languis, M. & Andrew, D. The relation of ERP components to complex memory processing. Brain Cogn. 36, 355–376. https://doi.org/10.1006/brcg.1998.0998 (1998).
doi: 10.1006/brcg.1998.0998
pubmed: 9647684
Luck, S. J. & Hillyard, S. A. Electrophysiological correlates of feature analysis during visual search. Psychophysiology 31, 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1994.tb02218.x (1994).
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1994.tb02218.x
pubmed: 8008793
Schweinberger, S. R. & Neumann, M. F. Repetition effects in human ERPs to faces. Cortex 80, 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.11.001 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.11.001
pubmed: 26672902
Schroeger, A., Ficco, L., Wuttke, S. J., Kaufmann, J. M. & Schweinberger, S. R. Differences between high and low performers in face recognition in electrophysiological correlates of face familiarity and distance-to-norm. Biol. Psychol. 182, 108654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2023.108654 (2023).
doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2023.108654
pubmed: 37549807
Nunez, M. D., Gosai, A., Vandekerckhove, J. & Srinivasan, R. The latency of a visual evoked potential tracks the onset of decision making. NeuroImage 197, 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.04.052 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.04.052
pubmed: 31028925
Sulpizio, S. & Job, R. Early and multiple-loci divergency of proper and common names: An event-related potential investigation. Neuropsychologia 119, 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.07.034 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.07.034
pubmed: 30075217
Perea, M. et al. One more trip to Barcetona: On the special status of visual similarity in city names. Psychol. Res. 88, 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-023-01839-3 (2024).
doi: 10.1007/s00426-023-01839-3
pubmed: 37353613
Goldinger, S. D. Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychol. Rev. 105, 251–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.105.2.251 (1998).
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.105.2.251
pubmed: 9577239
Jamieson, R. K., Johns, B. T., Vokey, J. R. & Jones, M. N. Instance theory as a domain-general framework for cognitive psychology. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1, 174–183. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00025-3 (2022).
doi: 10.1038/s44159-022-00025-3
Foroudi, P., Melewar, T. C. & Gupta, S. Corporate logo: History, definition, and components. Int. Stud. Manag. Organ. 47, 176–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2017.1256166 (2017).
doi: 10.1080/00208825.2017.1256166
Bedi, S. & Reibstein, D. Measuring trademark dilution by tarnishment. Indiana Law Rev. 95, 683–734 (2020).
Mitchell, V. W. & Kearney, I. A critique of legal measures of brand confusion. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 11, 357–379. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420210445497 (2002).
doi: 10.1108/10610420210445497
Abdel-Khalik, J. Is a rose by any other image still a rose? Disconnecting dilution’s similarity test from traditional trademark concepts. U. Tol. L. Rev., 39, 591–631. https://ssrn.com/abstract=129734 (2007).