以事件相關電位探討中文語音辨識中的字形一致性效應 - 政大學術集成

全文

(1) . Event-Related Potentials studies for the Orthographic Consistency effects on Chinese spoken word recognition.

(2) . 1 low HD 3. 2. /. high HD/high P-O. /. high HD/low P-O. N400 LPC. N400. BIAM. 2.

(3) . ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 .............................................................................................................. 6 .............................................................................................................................. 8 Bimodal interaction activation model BIAM. ................................................. 9. O-P. ................................................................................. 10. P-O. ................................................................................. 11. ............................................................................................................ 13 ................................................................................................................................ 13 ............................................................................ 14 N320 ................................................................................................................................... 14 N400 ................................................................................................................................... 14 LPC .................................................................................................................................... 15 -. -. ..................................................................... 16. ........................................................................................................................ 23 O-P. ..................................................................... 23 ........................................................................ 25. P-O -. ..................................................................... 26. .......................................................................................... 28 .................................................... 32. ........................................................................................................................................ 32 ............................................................................................................................................ 32 .................................................................................................................... 32 ........................................................................................................................................ 34 ........................................................................................................................................ 35 ........................................................................................................................................ 36 ........................................................................................................................................ 36 ........................................................................................... 36 ............................................................................................... 37 ................................................................................................................... 39 ................................................................................................................................ 42 N400 ................................................................................................................................... 42 3.

(4) . LPC .................................................................................................................................... 43 .................................................... 44 ........................................................................................................................................ 44 ............................................................................................................................................ 44 ............................................................................................................................ 44 ........................................................................................................................................ 45 ........................................................................................................................................ 46 ........................................................................................................................................ 47 ........................................................................................................................................ 47 ........................................................................................................................... 47 ........................................................................................... 48 ............................................................................................... 48 prime. .................................................................. 49 ........................................................................... 51. target Rhyming effect ........................................................................................................................................... 54 Rhyming effect. ................................. 54. ................................................................................................................................ 55 N320 ................................................................................................................................... 55 N400 ................................................................................................................................... 56 ~700-900............................................................................................................................. 56 ........................................................................................................................... 56 ............................................................................................................................................ 57 ............................................................................................................................................ 61 ............................................................................................................................................ 62 . 4.

(5) . . Seidenberg & Tanenhaus. 1979 pie-tie. rye-tie. .... /yao2/ Lee, Tsai, Chan, Hsu, & Hung, 2007 2010. .

(6) . . 1. Dual-Route model Coltheart Rastle,1994 phoneme. grapheme m. ph. rules,. grapheme-to-phoneme conversion GPC mint /mInt/. GPC pint /paInt/ Coltheart 1978. Dual-Route model lexical procedure. prodcedure. nonlexical. 1 lexical procedure. GPC. GPC. Coltheart& Rastle. 1. Seidenberg 6. 1985. 1994.

(7) . GPC. 1 Coltheart& Rastle. 1994 Coltheart& Rastle(1994). Coltheart, Besner, Jonasson, & Davelaar 1979 GPC BRANE BRAIN NO trail. Van Orden. 1987. homophony orthographical similarity, ON. Robs. 7. Melt. Rows:Rose. Meat:Meet.

(8) 2 Van Orden. 1987 Van Orden. Coltheart. 1987. Dual-Route model. Seidenberg. Seidenberg & McClelland. 1989. Parallel Distributes Processing model PDP. the mapping consistency between orthography and phonology GPC. Coltheart PDP bean. lean. dean. ean. /In/. have. save. ave. / _æv /. Glushko. / _eIv/. 1979. Coltheart. Jared. 1997 8.

(9) friends. enemies. Lacruz & Folk. 2004. orthography-phonology consistency effect. Bimodal interaction activation model. BIAM. 2 Bimodal interaction activation model (BIAM) Grainger Ziegler(2007) Grainger & Ziegler BIAM. 2008. Bimodal interaction activation model. 2. cross-code consistency 9. .

(10) . sub-lexical units orthographic body rime. bi-directional. A. Phonological units. P. Orthographic units. B. B. A. O O-P. P-O. O-‐P. . O-P ( orthographic pattern ). O-P cheap. leap. heap. /ip/. O-P. _eap O-P. 3 _ave. save. / _eIv/. / _æv /. O-P _Int /. have. pint mint. / _aInt /. 3. 10. _int. /.

(11) O-P. Glushko. 1979. O-P. Andrews. 1982. Lacruz & Folk. 2004. O-P O-P. P-‐O. 4. . P-O. _ob / O. 4. /. _obe. P-. / _ip /. _eep. _eap. P-O feedback consistency P-O. Seidenberg and Tanenhaus. 1979 rhyme judgments. 11.

(12) task. prime. target. rye. pie-. pie-tie. P-O. Stone, Vanhoy. visual lexical decision task. 1997. P-O. P-O uck. Van orden. P-O P-O. /‫ר‬k/. O-P. O-P P-O P-O. O-P Ziegler and Ferrand. 1998. auditory lexical decision task. Ziegler. 2003. Orthographic neighborhood. ON. Phonological neighborhood PN PN. ON ON. Ziegler Muneaux. 2007 18. 11.4. 7.1 18. 11.1. 12. 18.

(13) . PN. PN ON. P-O. P-O. P-O. ERPs lexical sub-lexical. . epoch. 100. 13. 1000.

(14) (Event Related Potentials, ERPs). latency. distribution. N320 Perre & Ziegler. 2008. Pattamadilok, Perre, & Dufau. 2009. P-O P-O. early inconsistent words 350. P-O. 300. N400. lexical access. N320. sublexical. Jacquier, Rouibah, & Hoen. 2005. Masked Priming Tasks. phonological related N320. N320. N320. Simon et al., 2006. N320. sublexical. N400 N400. ERPs. 250. Kutas. 400 14. Hillyard. 1980.

(15) N400 P560. N400. 5. N400 (. 5. Kutas&Hillyard, 1980). N400 1993. Holcomb. semantic priming paradigm. N400 N400. Holcomb & Neville. 1990 Semantic Priming in Lexical Decision. Tack. N400 N400 N400. N400. LPC LPC late positive component 800. 400. latency. Friedman & Johnson, 2000. LPC. study-test design study. test old item 15.

(16) new item et al.. LPC. Paller, Kutas, & McIsaac, 1995; Smith & Guster, 1993. 1998. explicit. Rugg. implicit. memory-related judgment. LPC LPC. -‐. -‐. ERPs (Phonological. restructuring). (On-line activation). Perre, L., Pattamadilok, C., Montant, M., &. Phonological restructuring. Ziegler & Goswami 2005. Ziegler, J. C., 2009. Psycholinguistic grain size theory. Syllables. Onset-Rime. Nucleus-coda Phoneme Phone syllables. onset-rime. dog. /d g/ /d/ / / /g/. log. /l g/. /d g/. Phonological restructuring. qualitative differences. left inferior frontal gyrus,IFG) left superior temporal gyrus,STG) 6-2. Insula. left supra-marginal gyrus,SMG) Perre et al.,2009. 16.

(17) On-line activation. Seidenberg and Tanenhaus,1979. Ziegler and Ferrand,1998. Ziegler et al.,2008. (left inferior frontal gyrus,IFG). (Insula). (left superior temporal gyrus,STG). left supra-marginal gyrus,SMG region. left occipito-temporal. left fusiform gyrus. 6-1. Perre et al., 2009. 6-2. 6-1 6-1 6-2. Perre, Pattamadilok, Montant, & Ziegler. Perre & Ziegler. 2009. 2008. rhyme /rym/. ry. P-O. inconsistency /nos/. early noce. /os/. P-O 17. late inconsistency.

(18) P-O. ERPs. 200. N320 200. 7 Perre & Ziegler ( 2008 ) ( Perre & Ziegler, 2008 ) Perre & Ziegler. 2008. P-O. Pattamadilok, Perre, & Dufau. 2009. P-O. semantic judgment task body part. Go/No-go P-O. frequency. lexical access 18.

(19) P-O metaphonological. P-O. ERPs P-O. Perre & Ziegler. 2008 P-O. 300-350. P-O. 400-425. 525-575. 500. 8 Pattamadilok, Perre, & Dufau ( 2009 ) ( Pattamadilok, Perre, & Dufau, 2009). time-locked P-O P-O 25. 50. Perre, Pattamadilok, Montant, & Ziegler 120. 2009. 120. P-O champagne. cham. P-O 19.

(20) PO. ERPs. P-O 300-. 380. 410-550 Perre 300-380. LORETA. 2009. Low resolution electromagnetic tomography, 350. temporo-parietal area superior temporal gyrus, STG). left left supra-marginal gyrus, SMG inferior parietal lobule. activation left inferior frontal gyrus,IFG). 9 Perre, Pattamadilok, Montant, & Ziegler(2009) ( Perre, Pattamadilok, Montant, & Ziegler(2009) ) 20. (posterior differential.

(21) Pattamadilok, Perre, & Ziegler ( 2011 ). Pattamadilok. ( 2009 ). auditory rhyme judgment ERPs 25 26 175. 100 time window. 250. 375. 750 375. Pattamadilok et al.. 750. 2009. 10 300. 350. Pattamadilok. 2011. P-O. (. 10 ( A ) Pattamadilok (2011) ( B ) Pattamadilok (2009) Pattamadilok, Perre, & Ziegler(2011)& Pattamadilok (2009)). Pattamadilok, Perre, & Ziegler. 2011. Pattamadilok. P-O. Pattamadilok. 2011. P-O. Perrea and Ziegler 21. 2008. 2009. 750.

(22) . 200. N320. Pattamadilok. 2009. Go/No-go. time-locked N400. 300~350. 400~425 525~575 Pattamadilok. 2011. 375~750. N400. N400 and Ziegler. 2008. Perre. Perre. 2009. Pattamadilok N400. 2009 Perre. 2009. 300. 380 400. 600. ERPs N400 Perrea and Ziegler 2011. N400 2008. Pattamadilok. P-O. 2009. 25. N400. 50. 300-800. 3. Moving time window. P-O Pattamadilok. 2009 mean amplitude. 2009. Pattamadilok. Root mean square (RMS) P-O. 22. Perre.

(23) Perre and Ziegler 2008. Pattamadilok. 3 . 2009. P-O. Task demand . Mean Amplitude . Selected E lectrode sites . . Central-‐Posterior sites . InCon > Con . 300 ~ 350 ms Perre. Ziegler (2008) . Auditory LDT . 475 ~ 675 ms 575 ~ 625 ms . Pattamadilok, Perre, . Semantic . Dufau & Ziegler (2009) . judgment . Pattamadilok, Perre & . Rhyme . Ziegler (2011) . judgment . Perre, Pattamadilok, Montant & Ziegler (2009) . Auditory LDT . 300 ~ 350 ms . Fz, FC1, FCz, . 400 ~ 425 ms . FC2, C1, Cz, C2, CPz . 525 ~ 575 ms . F1, Fz, F2, C1, Cz, . 375 ~ 750 ms . 300 ~ 380 ms 410 ~ 550 ms . InCon > Con . Con > InCon . C2, P1, Pz, P2. AFz, Fz, FCz, Cz, CPz, Pz, POz AF7, F7, FC7, C7, CP7, P7, PO7 . InCon > Con . AF8, F8, FC8, C8, CP8, P8, PO8 . . radical. O-‐P. regularity. consistency. regular character 23.

(24) /du2/ /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. 11-2. -. ( Lee et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2006 ). Lee et al.. 24. 2005.

(25) . CVC V 5,000. 420. CV. VC. 1252 11. :. /yi1/. 2010. N1 N320 650. P200. N400. LPC. 770. CP3. P3. LPC P-O Wang, Li, Ning, & Zhang. 2012 600. 800 2010 25. 700. 700.

(26) 2010 N400. N400. P-‐O. . -. P-O 12. /ma3/ P-O /da3/. P-O. /pu4/. /pu4/. /pu4/. /gung/. ... /pu4/. 26. P-O.

(27) . 12 type frequency token frequency friends enemies. 4. 0.22. 2/9=0.22. /. 29652 33204. 67 0.9. 27. 29652+67. / 33024.

(28) 4 Friend 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10. 29652 3239 603 149 67 44 13 10 9 1 .. 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 2. /. Enemy /. 2/29719 6/3475 6/3475 6/3475 2/29719 6/3475 6/3475 1/10 6/3475. 7/3485 3/29729 3/29730 3/29731 7/3485 3/29729 3/29730 8/33194 3/29729. .. P-O consistency by P-O consistency by type( ) token( ). / 9/33204 9/33204 9/33204 9/33204 9/33204 9/33204 9/33204 9/33204 9/33204. .. .. 2/9=0.22 6/9=0.67 6/9=0.67 6/9=0.67 2/9=0.22 6/9=0.67 6/9=0.67 1/9=0.11 6/9=0.67 .. 29719/33024=0.9 3475/33024=0.1 3475/33024=0.1 3475/33024=0.1 29719/33024=0.9 3475/33024=0.1 3475/33024=0.1 10/33024=0 3475/33024=0.1 .. 2009 P-O. O-P. P-O. P-O. O-P. P-O. P-O O-P. P-O. -‐. P-O. Academia Sinica balanced corpus / 28. 1998 87.

(29) . 4. 4. 7203. 751. 1252. 1. Homophone Density. /gung/. /gung/. 14 1. 26. 69. 1. 1. 5. 13. /yi4/. 26. 29. 69.

(30) . 13 2. Phonology-to-Orthography consistency type. frequency. frequency. token frequency. typy frequency. /. token frequency. /. 0.5. 1. 5. 30. 14.

(31) . n<.01 4% n=0.1~0.5 8% n=1 39% . n=0.5~.99 49% . n=P-‐O. 14. . -. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%. . 0% <0.1. 0.1. 0.3. 15. 0.4. 0.5. 0.6. -. 31. 0.7. 0.8. 0.9. 1. .

(32) . . P-O. P-O P-O. . 300. 1 HD/high P-O HD. low HD 3. /. 2. P-O. high HD/high P-O 5. low HD. 1 P-O. HD. 11~15 /tiau2/. 500. P-O. high HD/low P-O. high HD/high P-O. P-O. /. P-O. 32. high low. high HD/low P-O.

(33) P-O .90. P-O. P-O. P-O. .50 low HD. high HD/ high P-O P-O P-O. 1. high HD/ low P-O. low HD. 6.9. high HD/ high P-O. high HD/ low P-O. 8.3 1. 0.97. 0.43 log. 5. -. 33. 3.53. 6.

(34) 6 . Homophone density . Phonological frequency (log) log . 1 . 3.26 . 1 . 6.9 . 3.63 . 0.97 . 8.3 . 3.7 . 0.43 . low HD 1 high HD/high P-‐O ηͷ P-‐O high HD/low P-‐O ηͷ P-‐O. ηǤͻ <.5 . P-‐O c onsistency -‐ . 90 60. niau3. mao1 15 CNS11643 Adobe Audition. 70. 650. . Windows XP. Matlab7.1 EEG75. 95. 70 15. 34.

(35) 500 650. B. 1500. 16. 16 500. 650 1650. B. 500. 1500. 30. N100 60. 160. P200 160. 200. P200. N400 N400. N400. latency. P-O N400. 35.

(36) 400. 200. 300. P-O. P-O 400. 700. 64. 10-20 mastoid. Reference. CZ CPZ. VEOG. Ground. FPZ FZ. HEOG. EEG. 100. 1000. :. 1.. (Gain): 1000. 2.. (Impendence):. 3.. (A/D rate): 1000Hz. . NeuroScan4.4. 1. 2.. re-referemce. M2. epoch epoch. 3.. M1. 100. 1000. baseline correction. epoch. 36. 100.

(37) 4.. filter. band-pass filter. 0.1 Hz. 30 Hz. 5.. Baseline correction. 6.. artifact rejection. 100. 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 300-400. N320. central-posterior site ERP. 300. peak. P200. 400. 400. 600. central-frontal site N400. N400. late positive component, LPC 700. 37. 900.

(38) F3. FZ. F4. FC3. FCZ. FC4. C3. CZ. C4. CP3. CPZ. CP4. P3. PZ. P4. PO5. POZ. PO6. OZ. low HD high HD/high P-O high HD/low P-O. 17 Perre. Ziegler. 2008. Pattamadilok. 2011. N320. 2009. Pattamadilok. N400. 25. 1 CPZ, CP4, P3, PZ, P4. N320. 300 400 msec 2. N400. C3, CZ, C4, CP3, 400 600 msec. F3, FC3, C3, FZ, FCZ, CZ, F4, FC4, C4 LPC 38.

(39) 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/high P-O. high HD/low P-O. low HD planned. comparisons Greenhouse-Geisser. 1.N320 18 400. P-O 25. 300. 50. 25. 7. 50 Fs < 1. Fs < 1 P-O. 18 P-O. N320 300-400 ( low HD vs high HD/high P-O ) ( high HD/high P-O vs high HD/low P-O ). 39.

(40) 7 Epoch(ms) . 300-‐325 F sig 0.36 0.66 0.51 0.78 . P-‐O effect P-‐O*site . . F HD effect 0.72 Consistency effect 0.14 . sig 0.40 0.71 . N320 4 epochs of 25 m s each 325-‐350 350-‐375 F sig F sig 0.28 0.74 0.69 0.50 0.47 0.82 0.87 0.51 F 0.38 0.47 . sig 0.54 0.50 . F 0.46 1.37 . . sig 0.50 0.25 . 375-‐400 F sig 0.81 0.43 0.77 0.59 F 0.49 1.62 . sig 0.49 0.21 . 2 epochs of 50 m s each 300-‐350 350-‐400 F Sig F Sig 0.32 0.70 0.78 0.46 0.47 0.82 0.78 0.57 F 0.59 0.31 . Sig 0.45 0.58 . F 0.49 1.56 . Sig 0.49 0.22 . Electrode sites: C3, CZ, C4, CP3, CPZ, CP4, P3, PZ, P4 . 2.N400 19 600. P-O. 400. 25. 450. 600. P-O. 19. N400 400-600 ( low HD vs high HD/high P-O ) ( high HD/high P-O vs high HD/low P-O ). 8. N400. P-O. Epoch(ms) . P-‐O effect P-‐O*site . HD effect . N400 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 1.15 0.33 2.22 0.13 2.46 0.11 3.53 0.05 4.09 0.03 3.33 0.05 1.67 0.21 0.64 0.68 0.70 0.63 0.85 0.52 0.87 0.51 1.30 0.27 1.81 0.10 1.34 0.24 F sig F sig F sig F sig F Sig F sig F sig 0.84 0.37 0.47 0.50 0.32 0.58 0.50 0.48 1.72 0.20 1.87 0.18 0.78 0.38 . Consistency effect 2.27 0.14 4.27 0.05 4.58 0.04 6.62 0.01 8.16 0.01 6.65 0.01 3.34 0.08 . . Electrode sites: F3, FC3, C3, FZ, FCZ, CZ, F4, FC4, C4 . 40.

(41) 25. 8. 550. 500. F(2,36)=3.53, p=.005; (F(2,36)=4.09, p=.003). P-O. 450. 550-570. 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 F(1,18)=1.15, p=.291. F(16,288)=3.87, p=.0135 ps<.01. P-O. CZ CP3. ps<.05 41. CPZ P3. P-O.

(42) . 21. LPC ( 700-900 ms ) P-O. N320 P-O. 450 P-O. P-O. P-O N400 N400. 700. P-O P-O P-O. N400. P-O. ERPs. N400. LPC. LPC. ERP. N400 N400 475. 575. P-O. P-O. P-O 25. 1. 200. N400. N400 3. Pattamadilok. 2009. Moving time window 475~575 42. P-O.

(43) Pattamadilok. 2009. 25. 50. 400-425. 525-. 575. N400 2009. Kutas & Hillyard Perre. Ziegler. N400. 2008. Pattamadilok. P-O. 1984. 2009. Perre P-O. N400. P-. O. N400 P-O. Pattamadilok. P-O. 2011. P-O. N400 Go/No-Go. N400. Pattamadilok. 2011. P-O. NoGO. no-decision. unexpect or mismatch N400 Pattamadilok P-O Pattamadilok. N400. N400. 2009. Pattamadilok. 2009. Go/NoGo. 2009 400-425 and 525-575. LPC P-O N400. LPC LPC. 2010 660 LPC. 770. LPC LPC. Paller, Kutas, & McIsaac, 1995; Smith & Guster, 1993 old item. new item) 43. LPC.

(44) LPC. LPC P-O. LPC LPC. P-O N400. LPC P-O P-O N400 P-O. . 300. rhyme judgment task prime. 1 HD/ high P-O. target. low HD 3. /. 2. P-O. /. P-O. high HD/ low P-O low HD. high HD/ high P-O P-O. 44. high HD/ high P-O. high HD/ low P-O. high 30.

(45) R+. 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 3.26 1. 6.9 3.63 0.97. 8.3 3.7 0.43. log P-O target log P-O. R+. R-. R+. R-. R+. R-. 2.03 3.03 0.99. 1.96 3.2 0.99. 1.67 2.97 0.99. 2.07 2.86 0.99. 2.03 2.87 0.99. 1.87 3.23 0.99. repetition effect. 10 Adobe Audition 70. 650. . 45.

(46) 75. 95. 70 10. 500. 650. 600. 650 1500 100. B B. 2000. 1500. 22. N100 P200. N400 N400. P-O. N400 N400. ERPs 46.

(47) 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=0.0039. P-O. high HD/ high P-O. F(1,17)=4.41, p=0.0432. F(1,17)=4.7,. P-O. 10 Rhyming effect P-‐O effect Rhyming x P-‐O low HD high HD/high P-‐O high HD/low P-‐O . F sig 5.67 0.0292 3.62 0.0414 0.13 0.8669 Rhyme x Condition by Con F sig 4.7 0.0372 4.41 0.0432 2.28 0.1399 47. F 0.8 8.46 2.00 . sig 0.38 0.0029 0.1603 . F 0.01 0.72 3.74 . sig 0.9216 0.4033 0.0615 .

(48) 1116.77 . 1140 1120 1100 1080 1060 1040 1020 1000 980 960. 1056.40 . 1055.85 . . msec. 98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80%. 1101.35 . R+. R-‐. 1039.72 . R+. R-‐. low HD. high HD/high P -‐O. 23. -. R+. . 87.6% . 87.1% . R+. R-‐. low HD. R-‐. high HD/low P-‐O. 92.3% . 1060.33 . 94.7% 91.9% . R+. R-‐. 90.7% . R+. R-‐. high HD/high P -‐O high HD/low P-‐O. 24. -. . EEG ERPs. 48.

(49) . 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. 400. ERP. peak. 300 400. 600. central-frontal. site. N400. N400. N400. 700. 900. LPC ERPs. N320. 300~400 msec. N400 400~600 msec. 700~900msec. 49. LPC.

(50) . . . 25. N320. N400. N320. N400. 1 N320 FC4, C4. 300. 400. /. 25 2. N400. F3, FC3, C3, FZ, FCZ, CZ, F4, 400. 600. / 50. 50.

(51) F3, FC3, C3, FZ, FCZ, CZ, F4, FC4, C4 LPC 700. 900. F3, FC3, C3, FZ, FCZ, CZ, F4, FC4, C4 HD/ high PO. high HD/ high P-O. low. high HD/ low P-O. ERP. repeated measures ANOVA P-O. high HD/ high P-O. high HD/ high P-O. high HD/ low P-O. low HD. planned comparisons Greenhouse-Geisser. 1.N320 26 400. P-O 25. 300. 50. 25. 50. 10. (Fs < 1) Fs < 1. 375. 400. F(1,17)=5.06, p=.031. F(1,17)=4.1, p=.051. 26 P-O. 350. P-O. N320 300-400 ( low HD vs high HD/ high P-O ) ( high HD/ high P-O vs high HD/ low P-O ) 51. 400.

(52) 11 Epoch(ms) . P-‐O effect P-‐O*site . N320. 4 epochs of 25 ms each 300-‐325 325-‐350 350-‐375 F sig F Sig F Sig 1.22 0.31 1.49 0.24 1.58 0.23 0.92 0.48 0.92 0.48 1.08 0.38 . . F HD effect 1.97 Consistency effect 0.01 . sig 0.17 0.92 . F 2.37 0.01 . Sig 0.13 0.92 . F 2.68 0.05 . . 2 epochs of 50 ms each 375-‐400 300-‐350 350-‐400 F sig F sig F sig 2.59 0.10 1.52 0.23 2.07 0.16 1.30 0.27 1.00 0.46 1.15 0.31 . Sig F sig F sig F sig 0.11 5.06 0.03 2.45 0.13 4.10 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 27 600. P-O. 400. 25. 425. 500. P-O. 27 P-O. N400 400-600 ( low HD vs high HD/ high P-O ) ( high HD/ high P-O vs high HD/ low P-O ). 52.

(53) 12. N400. Epoch(ms) . . N400 400-‐425 . 425-‐450 . 450-‐475 . 475-‐500 . 500-‐525 . 525-‐550 . 550-‐575 . 575-‐600 . F . F . F . F . F . F . F . F . sig . sig . sig . Sig . sig . Sig . sig . sig . P-‐O effect . 1.09 0.34 2.90 0.08 2.81 0.09 2.97 0.08 2.02 0.16 1.49 0.24 0.99 0.38 1.18 0.32 . P-‐O*site . 1.70 0.13 1.55 0.17 0.67 0.69 1.16 0.33 0.85 0.54 0.98 0.45 1.14 0.34 2.09 0.06 . . F . HD effect . sig . F . sig . F . sig . F . Sig . F . sig . F . Sig . F . sig . F . sig . 1.64 0.21 1.74 0.20 1.27 0.27 0.03 0.86 0.07 0.79 0.00 0.95 0.14 0.71 0.24 0.63 . Consistency effect 1.63 0.21 5.77 0.02 5.61 0.02 4.83 0.04 3.45 0.07 2.14 0.15 0.96 0.33 1.02 0.32 . . Electrode sites: F3, FC3, C3, FZ, FCZ, CZ, F4, FC4, C4 . 25. 11. 500. 425. F(2,34)=2.9, p=.008; F(2,34)=2.81, p=.009; F(2,34)=2.97,. p=.008. 575 P-O. 425. 525. 600. 500. 500. F(1,18)=3.45,p=.007 425. 500. 3*9 F(2,34)=3.28,p=.0675 F(16,272)=1.63, p=.179 P-O. F(1,17)=6.45,p=.0158. P-O. P-O. N400. 3.. 700-‐900. F(1,17)=0.98, p=.328. F3, FC3, C3, FZ, FCZ, CZ, F4, FC4, C4 F(2,34)=0.59,p=.549 F(16,272)=0.6,p=.646 P-O. Fs < 1 P-O. 425. 500. P-O. N400. P-O ERPs. 53. LPC.

(54) . target. Rhyming effect. . low HD HD/high P-O. /. 400. 800. P-O. /. P-O. high. high HD/low P-O. 100. 28. 400-800. Rhyming effect. . 2x3x9 9 800. C3. CZ C4. CP3. CPZ CP4. 100 54. P3. PZ P4. 300.

(55) 13 Epoch(ms) . 300-‐400 . 400-‐500 . . F . sig . F . sig . Rhyming effect . 2.71 . 0.118 . 11.92 . P-‐O effect . 0.13 . 0.823 . Rhyming x P-‐O . 0.11 . Rhyming x site . 500-‐600 F . 600-‐700 . sig . 700-‐800 . F . sig . F . Sig . 0.003 11.09 0.004 . 6.16 . 0.024 . 3.02 . 0.100 . 1.56 . 0.228 . 2.54 . 0.096 . 0.37 . 0.675 . 0.09 . 0.886 . 0.892 . 0.36 . 0.692 . 1.08 . 0.351 . 0.68 . 0.485 . 1.34 . 0.273 . 3.18 . 0.020 . 3.63 . 0.013 . 4.03 . 0.005 . 3.74 . 0.007 . 1.81 . 0.134 . P-‐O x site . 1.56 . 0.168 . 1.60 . 0.160 . 1.52 . 0.182 . 0.87 . 0.516 . 0.90 . 0.491 . Rhyming x P-‐Ox site . 1.24 . 0.239 . 1.70 . 0.116 . 1.33 . 0.251 . 1.11 . 0.364 . 0.95 . 0.467 . . . F . sig . F . sig . F . sig . F . sig . F . Sig . high HD/high P-‐O . 1.89 . 0.179 . 5.47 . 0.025 . 4.67 . 0.038 . 5.92 . 0.020 . 1.93 . 0.174 . low HD . 0.51 . 0.479 . 2.69 . 0.110 10.48 0.003 . 6.69 . 0.014 . 8.01 . 0.008 . high HD/low P-‐O . 1.38 . 0.247 . 1.29 . 0.264 . 1.19 . 0.283 . 0.29 . 0.594 . 400 300. 1.35 . 0.254 . 700. 700 /. P-O. high HD/ high P-O. 400. 700. 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 low P-O. /. P-O. Fs<1. Seidenberg & Tanenhaus. 1979. ERP. N320 N320 Pattamadilok. 2011. 55. high HD/.

(56) . N400 N400. P-O 425-500. P-O. N400 N400. N400 2009. Perre. P-O Ziegler. 2008. Pattamadilok. Perre 2009. P-O P-O. onset, or early consistency rime, late consistency. P-O. ~700-‐900 700. LPC. LPC LPC LPC. . / 400. P-O. high HD/ high P-O 800. / PO. /. P-O. 300 56. 800. P-O.

(57) . BIAM. Ziegler. 2003. facilitative effect. /. P-O. /. P-O. /. P-O. . P-O. P-O P-O. N400 P-O. P-O 57.

(58) . P-O N400 N400. Pattamadilok. N400 2008. Pattamadilok. P-O. Perre 2009. 2011 2009. Perre. Ziegler N400. 2011. P-O. 2011. segmentation. P-O memory trace. P-O. No-trial. mismatch Pattamadilok. P-O. P-O. Pattamadilok Pattamadilok. P-O. 2009. N400. 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. 58.

(59) . LPC LPC. P-O. 2010 Wang. 2012 N400. 600-700. 2010 LPC N400. Wang. CP3. P3. 2012. 13 14. high HD low HD high HD ~700-900 low HD high HD 650-770 low HD 700-900. 2010 Wang, Li, Ning, & Zhang (2012). 600-800. LPC. CP3. high HD low HD. LPC late N400. LPC new item. P3. old item LPC. Paller, Kutas, & McIsaac, 1995; Smith & Guster, 1993 N400. late positive complex. Van Patten. PNP. 59. Luka. 2012. post N400 positivity.

(60) . recognition. Wang. LPC. 2012. PNP. 600. 800 N400. late N400. N400. 700. 900. LPC. late N400. LPC. go/nogo. Grainger & Ziegler. cross-code consistency. (mapping). 60. 2008. BIAM.

(61) . On-line activation. Phonological. restructuring P-O. N400 P-O. P-O. P-O. P-O. N400. N400. 61.

(62) . 87. 87. http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/M0001/86news/ch5-3.html?open 98 http://ccur.lib.ccu.edu.tw/handle/309310000Q/9282 99 http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgibin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22098NTPTC790001%22.&searchmode=basic 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 paralleldistributed-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, 204256. 62.

(63) 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. 63.

(64) Lee, C.Y., Tsai, J.L., Huang, H.W., Hung, D.L.&Tzeng, O.J.L., (2006). The temporal signatures of 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. 64.

(65) 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. 65.

(66) . 1 Coltheart& Rastle 2 Van Orden 3. 1987. P-O. 1994. .................................................. 7 .................................................................................. 8 ......................................................................................... 23. 4 5. .................................................................. 28 -. 6. ............................................................................................ 33 .............................................................................................................. 34. 7. N320. ................................................................................ 40. 8. N400. ................................................................................ 40. 9. ............................................................................................................ 45. 10 11 12. .................................................................................. 47 N320 N400. .............................................................................. 52 ................................................................................ 53. 13. ...................................................................................... 55. 14. ............................................................................................ 59. 66.

(67) . 1. Dual-Route model ........................................................................ 6. 2. .................................................................................................................... 9. 3. -. ................................................................................................ 10. 4. -. ................................................................................................ 11. 5 N400. .......................................................................... 15. 6-1 .................................................................................................................................... 17 6-2 ................................................................................................................................................17 7 Perre & Ziegler ( 2008 ). ...................................... 18. 8 Pattamadilok, Perre, & Dufau ( 2009 ). ...................... 19. 9 Perre, Pattamadilok, Montant, & Ziegler(2009) 10. ......... 20. ............................................................................................ 21. 11. -. ........................................................................................... 24. 12. .................................................................... 27. 13. ................................................................................................ 30. 14. -. ........................................................................... 31. 15. -. ............................................................................... 31. 16. ................................................................................................................ 35. 17. ...................................................................................................... 38. 18. N320 300-400. ............................................................................... 39. 19. N400 400-600. ............................................................................... 40. 20. N400 ( 475. 21. LPC ( 700-900 ms ) ................................................................................................... 42. 22. .................................................................................................................. 46. 575. )........................................................................................... 41. 23. -. ................................................................................................... 48. 24. -. ....................................................................................................... 48. 25. .................................................................................................. 50. 26. N320 300-400. ............................................................................... 51. 27. N400 400-600. ............................................................................... 52. 28. 400-800. ....................................................... 54 . 67.

(68) . / P-O low HD p031 . . >500 . . (log) . P-‐O. . 1. 2. 1. p032 . 1. 2. 1. p033 . 1. 2. 1. p034 . 1. 2. 1. p035 . 1. 4. 1. p036 . 1. 3. 1. p037 . 1. 4. 1. p038 . 1. 4. 1. p039 . 1. 4. 1. p040 . 1. 4. 1. p041 . 1. 4. 1. p042 . 1. 4. 1. p043 . 1. 2. 1. p044 . 1. 4. 1. p045 . 1. 3. 1. p046 . 1. 4. 1. p047 . 1. 4. 1. p048 . 1. 4. 1. p049 . 1. 4. 1. p050 . 1. 3. 1. p051 . 1. 3. 1. p052 . 1. 4. 1. p053 . 1. 3. 1. p054 . 1. 3. 1. p055 . 1. 3. 1. p056 . 1. 3. 1. p057 . 1. 3. 1. p058 . 1. 3. 1. p059 . 1. 3. 1. p060 . 1. 3. 1. 68.

(69) / high HD/ high P-‐O p001 . P-O . >500 . . (log) . P-‐O. . 7. 4. 0.99. p002 . 8. 4. 1. p003 . 8. 3. 1. p004 . 7. 4. 1. p005 . 7. 3. 1. p006 . 8. 3. 1. p007 . 16. 4. 0.97. p008 . 6. 4. 1. p009 . 5. 3. 1. p010 . 5. 3. 1. p011 . 5. 4. 1. p012 . 5. 4. 1. p013 . 12. 4. 0.99. p014 . 5. 4. 0.99. p015 . 5. 3. 0.99. p016 . 5. 3. 0.99. p017 . 5. 4. 0.93. p018 . 6. 4. 0.98. p019 . 5. 4. 0.98. p020 . 5. 4. 0.9. p021 . 9. 4. 0.95. p022 . 7. 4. 0.95. p023 . 6. 3. 0.95. p024 . 6. 3. 0.92. p025 . 13. 4. 0.94. p026 . 8. 3. 0.94. p027 . 7. 4. 0.94. p028 . 7. 5. 0.93. p029 . 5. 3. 0.94. p030 . 5. 3. 0.94. 69.

(70) / high HD/ low P-‐O . P-O . >500 . . (log) . P-‐O. . p061 . 12. 5. 0.37. p062 . 12. 4. 0.39. p063 . 12. 3. 0.45. p064 . 6. 4. 0.37. p065 . 6. 4. 0.4. p066 . 8. 4. 0.5. p067 . 10. 3. 0.39. p068 . 10. 4. 0.44. p069 . 10. 4. 0.46. p070 . 9. 4. 0.44. p071 . 9. 3. 0.45. p072 . 9. 5. 0.45. p073 . 7. 3. 0.48. p074 . 6. 3. 0.45. p075 . 6. 3. 0.45. p076 . 8. 3. 0.49. p077 . 6. 4. 0.47. p078 . 13. 3. 0.36. p079 . 7. 3. 0.38. p080 . 7. 4. 0.41. p081 . 7. 4. 0.42. p082 . 7. 4. 0.43. p083 . 7. 4. 0.47. p084 . 7. 4. 0.5. p085 . 8. 4. 0.37. p086 . 8. 3. 0.4. p087 . 8. 4. 0.4. p088 . 8. 4. 0.43. p089 . 8. 3. 0.44. p090 . 8. 4. 0.46. 70.

(71) . 71.

(72)