P- O
3 P-O
Amplitude Selected Electrode sites
Perre Ziegler (2008) Auditory LDT
300 ~ 350 ms 475 ~ 675 ms 575 ~ 625 ms
Central-‐Posterior sites InCon > Con
Pattamadilok, Perre, Dufau & Ziegler (2009)
Semantic
Pattamadilok, Perre &
Ziegler (2011)
Rhyme
judgment 375 ~ 750 ms F1, Fz, F2, C1, Cz,
C2, P1, Pz, P2. Con > InCon Perre, Pattamadilok,
Montant & Ziegler (2009)
/mai4/ irregular character
Hue, 1992; Lee et al., 2005
- O-P
O-P O-P
/yao2/ O-P
11-1
/liu2/ /yu4/ /shu/ O-P 11-2
11
( Lee et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2006 ) Lee et al. 2005
CVC V CV VC
5,000 420 1252
11 :
/yi1/
2010
N1 P200
N320 N400 LPC
650 770 CP3 P3
LPC P-O Wang, Li, Ning, & Zhang 2012
600 700 700
800
2010
N400
N400
P-‐O
-P-O
12 /ma3/
P-O /da3/
P-O /pu4/
/pu4/ /pu4/ P-O
/gung/ ...
/pu4/
12
-type frequency token frequency
friends enemies
4
0.22 2/9=0.22 /
29652 67
33204 0.9 29652+67 / 33024
2009
Academia Sinica balanced corpus 1998
/ 87
P-O consistency by token( )
4
4
7203 751 1252
-1 Homophone Density /gung/
/gung/ 14
1 69 1
26 1 5
13 /yi4/ 69
26
13
2 Phonology-to-Orthography consistency
type
frequency frequency token frequency
typy frequency /
token frequency /
0.5 1 14
5
14
P-O
P-O P-O
300
-1 low HD 2 / P-O high
HD/high P-O 3 / P-O high HD/low P-O low
HD high HD/high P-O high HD/high P-O high HD/low P-O
P-O 5
low HD 1
P-O HD
11~15
/tiau2/
500 P-O
-P-O P-O
.90 P-O P-O .50
low HD 1
high HD/ high P-O high HD/ low P-O 6.9 8.3
P-O low HD high HD/ high P-O 1 0.97
P-O high HD/ low P-O 0.43
log 3.53 6
5
-90
60 niau3 mao1
15
CNS11643 Adobe Audition
70 650
Windows XP Matlab7.1
EEG- frequency (log)
log
P-‐O consistency
-‐
low HD
1 1 3.26 1
high HD/high P-‐O
ηͷ P-‐O ηǤͻ 6.9 3.63 0.97
high HD/low P-‐O
ηͷ P-‐O <.5 8.3 3.7 0.43
16
500 650
1650 500
B 1500
30
N100
60 160
P200
160 200
P200 N400
N400 P-O
N400 latency N400
650
B 1500
500
16
P-O
400 700
64 10-20
mastoid
Reference CZ CPZ Ground FPZ FZ HEOG
VEOG EEG 100
1000 :
1. (Gain): 1000
2. (Impendence):
3. (A/D rate): 1000Hz
NeuroScan4.4
1. re-referemce M1 M2
2. epoch
epoch 100 1000
3. baseline correction epoch 100
4. filter band-pass filter
0.1 Hz 30 Hz
5. Baseline correction 100
6. artifact rejection HEOG VEOG ±70
±10
20
7. average
8. Group average
17 low HD /
P-O high HD/ high P-O / P-O high HD/ low
P-O N1 P200
300-400 N320
central-posterior site 300 400
ERP peak 400 600
central-frontal site
N400 N400 late positive component, LPC
700 900
17
Perre Ziegler 2008 Pattamadilok 2009 Pattamadilok
2011 N320 N400
25
1 N320 300 400 msec C3, CZ, C4, CP3,
CPZ, CP4, P3, PZ, P4 2 N400 400 600 msec
F3, FC3, C3, FZ, FCZ, CZ, F4, FC4, C4
LPC
FC3 FCZ
C3 CZ C4
CP3 CPZ CP4
low HD
high HD/high P-O high HD/low P-O FC4
P3 PZ P4
PO5 POZ PO6
OZ
700~900msec C3, CZ, C4, CP3, CPZ, CP4, P3, PZ, P4
low HD high HD/ high P-O high HD/ low P-O ERP
repeated measures ANOVA
P-O high HD/high P-O high HD/low P-O
high HD/high P-O low HD
planned comparisons
Greenhouse-Geisser
1.N320
18 P-O 300
400 25 50 25 50
7 Fs < 1
Fs < 1 P-O
18 N320 300-400
( low HD vs high HD/high P-O )
P-O ( high HD/high P-O vs high HD/low P-O )
4 epochs of 25 ms each 2 epochs of 50 ms each
Epoch(ms) 300-‐325 325-‐350 350-‐375 375-‐400 300-‐350 350-‐400
F sig F sig F sig F sig F Sig F Sig
Epoch(ms) 425-‐450 450-‐475 475-‐500 500-‐525 525-‐550 550-‐575 575-‐600
F sig F sig F sig F sig F Sig F sig F sig
25 8 500
550 F(2,36)=3.53, p=.005; (F(2,36)=4.09, p=.003) 550-570
P-O 450 575
450 575
3x9 F(2,36)=3.55, p=.043
F(16,288)=1.05, p=.398
P-O high HD/ high P-O vs high HD/ low P-O
F(1,18)=6.28, p=.0121 P-O P-O N400
F(1,18)=1.06, p=.31
20 N400 ( 475 575 )
P-O
3.LPC 700-‐900
3x9 F(2,36)=4.54, p=.029
F(1,18)=8.85, p=.005 LPC P-O
F(1,18)=1.15, p=.291 F(16,288)=3.87, p=.0135
ps<.01 P-O CZ CP3 CPZ P3
ps<.05
N320 P-O
P-O 450 N400
P-O N400
P-O 700
P-O P-O
P-O N400 P-O N400
ERPs LPC LPC
ERP
N400
N400
475 575 P-O P-O N400
P-O N400
25 1 200 3 Pattamadilok 2009
Moving time window
475~575 P-O
21 LPC ( 700-900 ms ) P-O
Pattamadilok 2009 25 50 400-425 525-575
N400 Kutas & Hillyard 1984 Perre
2009 Perre Ziegler 2008 Pattamadilok 2009 P-O
N400 P-O N400
P-O N400 N400
P-O Pattamadilok 2011
P-O P-O N400 Pattamadilok 2011
Go/No-Go P-O
NoGO no-decision
unexpect or mismatch N400
Pattamadilok 2009
P-O N400
Pattamadilok 2009 Go/NoGo
N400 Pattamadilok 2009
400-425 and 525-575
LPC
P-O
N400 LPC
LPC 2010
660 770 LPC
LPC LPC
Paller, Kutas, & McIsaac, 1995; Smith & Guster, 1993
old item new item) LPC
P-O LPC
LPC
P-O
N400 LPC
P-O P-O
N400
P-O
300
rhyme judgment task
prime target
1 low HD 2 / P-O high
HD/ high P-O 3 / P-O high HD/ low P-O 30
low HD high HD/ high P-O high HD/ high P-O high HD/ low P-O
P-O
R+
R+ vs
R-/tai2/ R+:/bai2/ R- /shen2/
P-O 0.99
9
prime low HD high HD/high P-O high HD/low P-O
1 6.9 8.3
log 3.26 3.63 3.7
P-O 1 0.97 0.43
target R+ R- R+ R- R+ R-
2.03 1.96 1.67 2.07 2.03 1.87
log 3.03 3.2 2.97 2.86 2.87 3.23
P-O 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
repetition effect
10
Adobe Audition
70 650
95 70 10
500 650
600 650
1500
100 B 2000
B 1500
N100
P200 N400 P-O
N400 N400
N400 ERPs
22
rhyming effect N400
low HD high HD/high P-O high HD/low P-O
F(1,17)=5.67,
p=0.0292 F(1,17)=0.8, p=0.38
F(2,34)=3.62, p=0.0414 F(2,34)=8.46, p=0.0029 Fs<1
low HD
/ P-O high HD/ high P-O F(1,17)=4.7,
p=0.0039 F(1,17)=4.41, p=0.0432 P-O
10
F sig F sig
Rhyming effect 5.67 0.0292 0.8 0.38
P-‐O effect 3.62 0.0414 8.46 0.0029
Rhyming x P-‐O 0.13 0.8669 2.00 0.1603
Rhyme x Condition by Con
F sig F sig
low HD 4.7 0.0372 0.01 0.9216
high HD/high P-‐O 4.41 0.0432 0.72 0.4033
high HD/low P-‐O 2.28 0.1399 3.74 0.0615
23
1039.72 1060.33
960980
low HD high HD/high P-‐O high HD/low P-‐O
low HD high HD/high P-‐O high HD/low P-‐O
prime
25
low HD / P-O high HD/ high P-O / P-O
high HD/ low P-O
N1 P200 300-400
N320 central-frontal site 300
400 ERP peak 400
600 central-frontal
site N400 N400
N400 700 900 LPC
ERPs
N320 300~400 msec N400 400~600 msec LPC
700~900msec
N320 N400 N320 N400
1
N320 300 400 / 25 F3, FC3, C3, FZ, FCZ, CZ, F4,
FC4, C4 2 N400 400 600 / 50
25
F3, FC3, C3, FZ, FCZ, CZ, F4, FC4, C4
LPC 700 900
F3, FC3, C3, FZ, FCZ, CZ, F4, FC4, C4 low
HD/ high PO high HD/ high P-O high HD/ low P-O ERP repeated measures ANOVA
P-O high HD/ high P-O high HD/ low P-O
high HD/ high P-O low HD
planned comparisons Greenhouse-Geisser
1.N320
26 P-O 300
400 25 50 25 50
10 (Fs < 1)
Fs < 1
375 400 F(1,17)=5.06, p=.031 350 400
F(1,17)=4.1, p=.051 P-O
26 N320 300-400
( low HD vs high HD/ high P-O )
P-O ( high HD/ high P-O vs high HD/ low P-O )
4 epochs of 25 ms each 2 epochs of 50 ms each
Epoch(ms) 300-‐325 325-‐350 350-‐375 375-‐400 300-‐350 350-‐400
F sig F Sig F Sig F sig F sig F sig
P-‐O effect 1.22 0.31 1.49 0.24 1.58 0.23 2.59 0.10 1.52 0.23 2.07 0.16 P-‐O*site 0.92 0.48 0.92 0.48 1.08 0.38 1.30 0.27 1.00 0.46 1.15 0.31
F sig F Sig F Sig F sig F sig F sig
HD effect 1.97 0.17 2.37 0.13 2.68 0.11 5.06 0.03 2.45 0.13 4.10 0.05 Consistency effect 0.01 0.92 0.01 0.92 0.05 0.83 2.03 0.16 0.01 0.91 0.75 0.39
Electrode sites: F3, FC3, C3, FZ, FCZ, CZ, F4, FC4, C4
2.N400
27 P-O 400
600 25 425 500
P-O
27 N400 400-600
( low HD vs high HD/ high P-O )
P-O ( high HD/ high P-O vs high HD/ low P-O )
12 N400
N400
Epoch(ms) 400-‐425 425-‐450 450-‐475 475-‐500 500-‐525 525-‐550 550-‐575 575-‐600
F sig F sig F sig F Sig F sig F Sig F sig F sig
500 F(2,34)=2.9, p=.008; F(2,34)=2.81, p=.009; F(2,34)=2.97,
p=.008 575 600
P-O 425 500 500
P-O F(1,17)=6.45,p=.0158 P-O P-O
N400 F(1,17)=0.98, p=.328
3. 700-‐900
low HD / P-O high
HD/high P-O / P-O high HD/low P-O
400 800 100
28 400-800
Rhyming effect
2x3x9
9 C3 CZ C4 CP3 CPZ CP4 P3 PZ P4 300
800 100
13
Epoch(ms) 300-‐400 400-‐500 500-‐600 600-‐700 700-‐800
F sig F sig F sig F sig F Sig
F(1,17)=5.47, p=0.025; F=4.67, p=0.038; F=5.92, p=0.02
low HD 500 800 F(1,17)=10.48, p=0.003
F(1,17)=6.69, p=0.014 F(1,17)=8.01, p=0.008 / P-O high HD/
low P-O Fs<1
Seidenberg & Tanenhaus 1979
ERP
N320
N320
Pattamadilok 2011
N400 P-O
425-500 N400
P-O N400
N400 P-O Perre
2009 Perre Ziegler 2008 Pattamadilok 2009 P-O
P-O
onset, or early consistency rime, late consistency
P-O
~700-‐900
700 LPC
LPC
LPC LPC
/ P-O high HD/ high P-O
400 800 / P-O
PO
/ P-O 300 800
BIAM
Ziegler 2003
facilitative effect
/ P-O
/ P-O
/ P-O
P-O
P-O P-O
N400
P-O P-O
P-O
N400 P-O P-O
N400 Pattamadilok 2011 P-O
N400 Perre 2009 Perre Ziegler
2008 Pattamadilok 2009 P-O N400
Pattamadilok 2011 P-O
Pattamadilok 2011
segmentation P-O
memory trace P-O No-trial
mismatch N400
Pattamadilok 2009 Go/No-go No-Go
P-O N400
P-O
P-O N400
N400 P-O
P-O P-O
N400 Lee, Tsai, Chan, Hsu, & Hung 2007 O-P
N400
P-O BIAM
cross-code consistency
P-O N400
BIAM
LPC
LPC P-O
2010
Wang 2012
N400 600-700
2010 CP3 P3
LPC Wang 2012
N400 13 Ning, & Zhang
(2012)
600-800 high HD
low HD late N400
LPC old item
new item LPC Paller, Kutas, & McIsaac, 1995; Smith & Guster, 1993 N400
late positive complex Van Patten Luka 2012 post N400 positivity PNP
recognition LPC PNP
Wang 2012 600 800
N400 late N400
N400
700 900
LPC late N400
LPC go/nogo
Grainger & Ziegler 2008 BIAM
cross-code consistency
(mapping)
On-line activation Phonological restructuring
P-O N400
P-O
P-O
P-O
P-O N400
N400
87 87
Andrews, S. (1982). Phonological recoding: Is the regularity effect consistent? Memory & cognition, 10(6), 565–575.
Barber, H., Vergara, M., & Carreiras, M. (2004). Syllable-frequency effects in visual word recognition:
evidence from ERPs. Neuroreport, 15(3), 545-548
Bentin, S., Mouchetant-Rostaing, Y., Giard, M., Echallier, J., & Pernier, J. (1999). ERP manifestations of processing printed words at different psycholinguistic levels: time course and scalp distribution.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(3), 235–260. MIT Press.
Danielle van den Brink, Colin M. Brown, and Peter Hagoort (2001). Electrophysiological evidence for early contextual influences during spoken-word recognition: N200 versus N400 effects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13(7), 967–985. doi:10.1162/089892901753165872
Chen, Y., Lee, J. R., Kuo, W.-J., Hung, D. L., & Cheng, S.-K. (2010). An ERP study of Chinese speakers' rhyme judgments to Chinese and English words. Neuroreport, 21(9), 636–640.
doi:10.1097/WNR.0b013e32833a5d2c
Coltheart, M., Besner, D., Jonasson, J. T., & Davelaar, E. (1979). Phonological encoding in the lexical decision task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31(3), 489–507.
Coltheart, M., Curtis, B., & Atkins, P. (1993). Models of reading aloud: Dual-route and parallel-distributed-processing approaches Psychological Review.
Coltheart, M. (1994). Serial processing in reading aloud: Evidence for dual-route models of reading Journal of Experimental Psychology: .
Coltheart, V., Patterson, K., & Leahy, J. (1994). When a ROWS is a ROSE: Phonological effects in written word comprehension. The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology A, Human experimental psychology, 47(4), 917–955.
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C., Langdon, R. (2001).DRC: A Dual Route Cascaded Model of Visual Word Recognition and ReadingAloud., Psychological Review, Vol. 108, No. I, 204-256
Friedman, D. D., & Johnson, R. R. (2000). Event-related potential (ERP) studies of memory encoding and retrieval: a selective review. Microscopy Research and Technique, 51(1), 6–28.
doi:10.1002/1097-0029(20001001)51:1<6::AID-JEMT2>3.0.CO;2-R
Friedrich, M., Friederici, A.D.(2006).Early N400 development and later language acquisition., Psychophysiology, 43.
Grainger, Jonathan.(1994) Phonology and orthography in visual word recognition: Effects of masked homophone primes , Journal of Memory and Language, 33:2 p.218
Grainger, J., & Ziegler, J. (2008). Cross-code consistency in a functional architecture for word recognition. Single-word reading: Behavioral and biological perspectives, 129–158.
Glushko, R. (1979). The organization and activation of orthographic knowledge in reading aloud, Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 5, 674-691
Holcomb, P. J., & Neville, H. J. (1990). Auditory and visual semantic priming in lexical decision: A comparison using event-related brain potentials. LANGUAGE AND COGNITIVE PROCESSES, 5(4), 281–312. doi:10.1080/01690969008407065
Holcomb, P. J., & Neville, H. J. (1991). Natural speech processing: An analysis using event-related brain potentials.
Holcomb, P. J. (1993). Semantic priming and stimulus degradation: implications for the role of the N400 in language processing. Psychophysiology, 30(1), 47-61.
Hillyard, S. A., Hink, R. F., Schwent, V. L., & Picton, T. W. (1973). Electrical Signs of Selective Attention in the Human Brain. Science, 182(4108), 177-180.
Hue, C.-W., (1992). Recognition processes in character naming. In Language processing in Chinese.
Advances in psychology. Vol. 90, H.-C.E. Chen, Tzeng, Ovid J L., eds. Amsterdam, Netherlands:
North-Holland. xii, 394, pp. 93-107.
Jacquier, C., Rouibah, A., & Hoen, M. (2005). ERP Evidence for an Interaction between Phonological and Semantic Processes in Masked Priming Tasks. Proceedings of the XXVIIth annual meeting of the cognitive science society (CogSci 2005), 1030–1035.
Kutas, M. and Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203-208.
Kutas, M. and Hillyard, S. A. An electrophysiological probe of incidental semantic association, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1989, 1(1): 38-49.
Lee, C.Y., Tsai, J.L., Kuo, W.J., Yeh, T.C., Wu, Y.T., Ho, L.T., Hung, D.L., Tzeng, O.J.&Hsieh, J.C., (2004). Neuronal correlates of consistency and frequency effects on Chinese character naming: an event-related fMRI study. NeuroImage. 23, 1235-45.
Lee, C.Y., Tsai, J.L., Su, E.C.I., Tzeng, O.J.L.&Hung, D.L., (2005). Consistency, Regularity, and Frequency Effects in Naming Chinese Characters. Language and Linguistics. 6, 75-107.
semantic and phonological activations for Chinese sublexical processing: An event-related potential study. Brain Research. 1121, 150-159.
Lee, C., Tsai, J., Chan, W., Hsu, C., & Hung, D. (2007). Temporal dynamics of the consistency effect in reading Chinese: an event-related potentials study. Neuroreport.
Lee, C., Huang, H., Kuo, W., & Tsai, J. (2010). Cognitive and neural basis of the consistency and lexicality effects in reading Chinese. Journal of Neurolinguistics.
Liu, Y., Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2003). ERP evidence for the time course of graphic, phonological, and semantic information in Chinese meaning and pronunciation decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(6), 1231-1247.
Nagi, K. (2008). The effect of feedback consistency and feedforward consistency (number of homophones and consistency) on reading and writing of Chinese in school-aged children, 84.
Paller, K. A., Kutas, M., & McIsaac, H. K. (1995). Monitoring conscious recollection via the electrical activity of the brain. Psychological science : a journal of the American Psychological Society / APS, 6(2), 107.
Pattamadilok, C., Perre, L., Dufau, S., Ziegler, J.C. (2009). On-line orthographic influences on spoken language in a semantic task. J Cogn Neurosci. 21, 169-79.
Pattamadilok, C., Perre, L., & Ziegler, J. C. (2011). Beyond rhyme or reason: ERPs reveal task-specific activation of orthography on spoken language. BRAIN AND LANGUAGE, 116(3), 116–124.
doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2010.12.002
Perre, L., & Ziegler, J. C. (2008). On-line activation of orthography in spoken word recognition. Brain Research, 1188, 132–138. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2007.10.084
Perre, L., Pattamadilok, C., Montant, M., Ziegler, J.C., 2009b. Orthographic effects in spoken language:
on-line activation or phonological restructuring? Brain Research. 1275, 73-80.
Pattamadilok, C., Perre, L., & Ziegler, J. C. (2011). Beyond rhyme or reason: ERPs reveal task-specific activation of orthography on spoken language. BRAIN AND LANGUAGE, 116(3), 116–124.
doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2010.12.002
Rugg MD. (1984). Event-related potentials in phonological matching tasks. Brain Lang, 23, 225–240.
Rugg, M. D., Mark, R. E., Walla, P., Schloerscheidt, A. M., Birch, C. S., & Allan, K. (1998).
Dissociation of the neural correlates of implicit and explicit memory. Nature, 392(6676), 595–598.
doi:10.1038/33396
Seidenberg, M. S. (1985). The time course of phonological code activation in two writing systems.
Cognition, 19(1), 1–30.
Seidenberg, M. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming Psychological Review, 97.
Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A Distributed, Developmental Model of Word Recognition and Naming: Defense Technical Information Center.
Smith, M. E., & Guster, K. (1993). Decomposition of recognition memory event-related potentials yields target, repetition, and retrieval effects. Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology, 86(5), 335–343.
Van Orden, G. C., Johnston, J. C., & Hale, B. L. (1988). Word identification in reading proceeds from spelling to sound to meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 371–386.
Van Orden, G. C. (1987). A ROWS is a ROSE: spelling, sound, and reading. Memory & cognition, 15(3), 181–198.
Ventura, P., Morais, J., Pattamadilok, C., Kolinsky, R., 2004. The locus of the orthographic consistency effect in auditory word recognition. Lang. Cogn. Processes 19, 57–95.
Van Petten, C., Coulson, S., Rubin, S., Plante, E., & Parks, M. (1999). Time course of word
identification and semantic integration in spoken language Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(2), 394–417.
Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1999). Probabilistic Phonotactics and Neighborhood Activation in Spoken Word Recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(3), 374–408.
doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2618
Wang, W., Li, X., Ning, N., & Zhang, J. X. (2012). The nature of the homophone density effect: an ERP study with Chinese spoken monosyllable homophones. Neuroscience letters, 516(1), 67–71.
doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2012.03.059
Yoncheva, Y. N., Zevin, J. D., Maurer, U., & McCandliss, B. D. (2010). Auditory selective attention to speech modulates activity in the visual word form area Cerebral Cortex, 20(3), 622–632.
doi:10.1093/cercor/bhp129
Ziegler, J. C, Muneaux, M. & Grainger, J . (2003). Neighborhood effects in auditory word recognition:
Phonological competition and orthographic facilitation. Journal of Memory & Language, 48, 779-793.
Ziegler, J. C., & Ferrand, L. (1998). Orthography shapes the perception of speech: The consistency effect in auditory recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 683–689.
Ziegler, J. C., Ferrand, L., & Montant, M. (2004). Visual phonology: The effects of orthographic consistency on different auditory word recognition tasks. Memory & Cognition, 32, 732–741.
Ziegler, J. C., & Muneaux, M. (2007). Orthographic facilitation and phonological inhibition in spoken word recognition: A developmental study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 75–80.
Ziegler, J. C., Muneaux, M., & Grainger, J. (2003). Neighborhood effect in auditory word recognition:
Phonological competition and orthographic facilitation. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 779–
793.
1 Coltheart& Rastle 1994 ... 7
2 Van Orden 1987 ... 8
3 P-O ... 23
4 ... 28
5 - ... 33
6 ... 34
7 N320 ... 40
8 N400 ... 40
9 ... 45
10 ... 47
11 N320 ... 52
12 N400 ... 53
13 ... 55
14 ... 59
1 Dual-Route model ... 6
9 Perre, Pattamadilok, Montant, & Ziegler(2009) ... 20
10 ... 21
/ P-O
/ P-O
high HD/