ND250 as a prediction error signal in orthographic processing: Evidence from comparing ERPs to handwritten and printed words

IF 1.2 3区心理学 Q2 LINGUISTICS

Journal of Neurolinguistics Pub Date : 2025-03-03 DOI:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2025.101249

Hongli Liu , Jiayi Zhang , Feng Gu

{"title":"ND250 as a prediction error signal in orthographic processing: Evidence from comparing ERPs to handwritten and printed words","authors":"Hongli Liu , Jiayi Zhang , Feng Gu","doi":"10.1016/j.jneuroling.2025.101249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Our ability to recognize tens of thousands of words is attributed to a rich lexicon in our brains, referred to as the orthographic lexicon. Understanding how this lexicon is organized in the brain is key to uncovering the neural mechanisms of visual word recognition. Event-related potentials (ERPs) are an effective tool for investigating these mechanisms. A widely observed phenomenon in orthographic processing is a 250-ms ERP difference between real words and pseudowords (or between high-frequency (HF) and low-frequency (LF) words). However, this 250-ms ERP difference has been explained by competing theories—one attributing it to the activation of the orthographic lexicon, and the other suggesting it represents a prediction error signal related to orthographic processing. To resolve this controversy, the present study uses handwritten words as control stimuli alongside printed words, as the 250-ms ERP difference is not observed with handwritten words. ERPs were obtained during an implicit reading task (color decision) for printed HF words, printed LF words, handwritten HF words, and handwritten LF words. The results show that the 250-ms ERP difference is significant when comparing printed LF words to printed HF words, handwritten LF words, and handwritten HF words. This finding indicates that the 250-ms ERP difference reflects increased neural activation to printed LF words compared to printed HF words, likely representing a prediction error signal in orthographic processing. These results support the Interactive Account of orthographic processing, clarify previous ERP findings in the literature, and underscore the potential applications of the 250-ms ERP difference (labeled as ND250) in future research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurolinguistics","volume":"74 ","pages":"Article 101249"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neurolinguistics","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0911604425000053","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Our ability to recognize tens of thousands of words is attributed to a rich lexicon in our brains, referred to as the orthographic lexicon. Understanding how this lexicon is organized in the brain is key to uncovering the neural mechanisms of visual word recognition. Event-related potentials (ERPs) are an effective tool for investigating these mechanisms. A widely observed phenomenon in orthographic processing is a 250-ms ERP difference between real words and pseudowords (or between high-frequency (HF) and low-frequency (LF) words). However, this 250-ms ERP difference has been explained by competing theories—one attributing it to the activation of the orthographic lexicon, and the other suggesting it represents a prediction error signal related to orthographic processing. To resolve this controversy, the present study uses handwritten words as control stimuli alongside printed words, as the 250-ms ERP difference is not observed with handwritten words. ERPs were obtained during an implicit reading task (color decision) for printed HF words, printed LF words, handwritten HF words, and handwritten LF words. The results show that the 250-ms ERP difference is significant when comparing printed LF words to printed HF words, handwritten LF words, and handwritten HF words. This finding indicates that the 250-ms ERP difference reflects increased neural activation to printed LF words compared to printed HF words, likely representing a prediction error signal in orthographic processing. These results support the Interactive Account of orthographic processing, clarify previous ERP findings in the literature, and underscore the potential applications of the 250-ms ERP difference (labeled as ND250) in future research.

查看原文本刊更多论文

我们之所以能够识别数以万计的单词，是因为我们的大脑中有一个丰富的词库，即正字法词库。了解大脑是如何组织这个词库的，是揭示视觉单词识别神经机制的关键。事件相关电位（ERPs）是研究这些机制的有效工具。在正字法处理过程中，一个被广泛观察到的现象是真词和假词（或高频（HF）词和低频（LF）词）之间 250 毫秒的ERP差异。然而，对这250毫秒的ERP差异有两种不同的解释--一种认为它是正字法词库激活的结果，另一种则认为它代表了与正字法加工相关的预测错误信号。为了解决这一争议，本研究将手写单词与印刷单词作为对照刺激，因为手写单词不会出现 250 毫秒的 ERP 差异。在内隐性阅读任务（颜色判定）中，对印刷高频词、印刷低频词、手写高频词和手写低频词进行了ERP测量。结果表明，在将印刷的低频字词与印刷的高频字词、手写的低频字词和手写的高频字词进行比较时，250 毫秒的 ERP 差异是显著的。这一结果表明，250 毫秒的 ERP 差异反映了与印刷高频词相比，印刷低频词的神经激活增加了，这很可能代表了正字法处理过程中的预测错误信号。这些结果支持了正字法处理的互动账户，澄清了之前文献中的ERP发现，并强调了250毫秒ERP差异（标记为ND250）在未来研究中的潜在应用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Neurolinguistics 医学-神经科学

CiteScore

3.90

自引率

5.00%

发文量

审稿时长

17.2 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Neurolinguistics is an international forum for the integration of the neurosciences and language sciences. JNL provides for rapid publication of novel, peer-reviewed research into the interaction between language, communication and brain processes. The focus is on rigorous studies of an empirical or theoretical nature and which make an original contribution to our knowledge about the involvement of the nervous system in communication and its breakdowns. Contributions from neurology, communication disorders, linguistics, neuropsychology and cognitive science in general are welcome. Published articles will typically address issues relating some aspect of language or speech function to its neurological substrates with clear theoretical import. Interdisciplinary work on any aspect of the biological foundations of language and its disorders resulting from brain damage is encouraged. Studies of normal subjects, with clear reference to brain functions, are appropriate. Group-studies on well defined samples and case studies with well documented lesion or nervous system dysfunction are acceptable. The journal is open to empirical reports and review articles. Special issues on aspects of the relation between language and the structure and function of the nervous system are also welcome.