Search

During reading, word recognition speed is influenced by the amount of orthographic overlap with surrounding words. The nature of this phenomenon is not understood: some theories attribute it to low-level visual operations (i.e., parafoveal feature detectors influencing foveal letter detectors), whereas other theories assume that orthographic processing (i.e., letter position coding and word activation) occurs across multiple words in parallel. To arbitrate between these theories, we used electroencephalography to reveal the time course of orthographic spatial integration in a lexical decision task. Foveal target words were flanked on each side by parafoveal words, manipulated across three conditions: repetition flankers (e.g. rock rock rock), unrelated flankers (step rock step) and a no-flanker condition. Linear mixed-effect models were constructed to analyze EEG data on a trial-by-trial basis. Word recognition was worse in the unrelated flanker condition than in the repetition and no-flanker conditions. This behavioral pattern was accompanied by increased negativity in the N250 and N400 windows, associated with the activation of sub-lexical and lexico-semantic representations, respectively. Crucially, the absence of effects prior to 200 ms post-stimulus onset provides evidence against the involvement of low-level visual processes. We conclude that orthographic spatial integration is driven by parallel processing of multiple words, which leads to the activation of a larger set of sub-lexical nodes and more difficult processing at the lexical level when those words are orthographically unrelated., Highlights • Words are recognized faster when they share many letters with surrounding words. • EEG measurements suggest that this effect unfolds 200 ms after stimulus onset. • The locus of effects contradicts the involvement of low-level visual processing. • Instead, the phenomenon appears to be driven by parallel orthographic processing.

Three different aptitudes involved in sound object recognition were tested in 60 normal subjects and 20 brain-damaged patients: (i) capacity to segregate sound objects on different cues (intensity steps, coherent temporal modulations or signal onset synchrony); (ii) asemantic recognition of sounds of real objects by judging whether two different sound samples belonged to the same object; and (iii) semantic identification of sounds of real objects as judged by means of a multiple choice response test. In 12 patients, different aptitudes involved in auditory recognition were disrupted separately and in a way which speaks in favour of parallel rather than hierarchical processing. There was no strong association between deficits in non-verbal auditory recognition and aphasia or the side of lesion.

The theory of visual attention (TVA; Bundesen, 1990. Psychological Review, 97(4), 523-547), allows one to measure distinct visual attention parameters, such as the temporal threshold for visual perception, visual processing capacity, and visual short-term memory (VSTM) capacity. It has long been assumed that visual processing capacity and VSTM capacity parameters are nearly constant from trial to trial. However, Dyrholm, Kyllingsbaek, Espeseth, and Bundesen (2011). Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 55(6), 416-429, found evidence of considerable trial-by-trial variability of VSTM capacity. Here we show that one cause of trial-by-trial variation is that some parameters depend on whether processing of relevant information occurs in only one hemifield or in both hemifields. Our results show that VSTM and visual processing capacities are higher when stimuli are distributed across the hemifields rather than located in the same hemifield. This corresponds to previous suggestions that parallel processing is more efficient across hemifields than within a single hemifield because both hemispheres are involved (e.g., Alvarez & Cavanagh, 2005. Psychological Science, 16(8), 637-643; Kraft et al., 2005. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(1), 453-463). We argue that the established view of a fixed visual attentional capacity must be relativized by taking hemifield distribution into account.

International audience; Traditionally, the ventral occipito-temporal (vOT) area, but not the superior parietal lobules (SPLs), is thought as belonging to the neural system of visual word recognition. However, some dyslexic children who exhibit a visual attention span disorder - i.e. poor multi-element parallel processing - further show reduced SPLs activation when engaged in visual multi-element categorization tasks. We investigated whether these parietal regions further contribute to letter-identity processing within strings. Adult skilled readers and dyslexic participants with a visual attention span disorder were administered a letter-string comparison task under fMRI. Dyslexic adults were less accurate than skilled readers to detect letter identity substitutions within strings. In skilled readers, letter identity differs related to enhanced activation of the left vOT. However, specific neural responses were further found in the superior and inferior parietal regions, including the SPLs bilaterally. Two brain regions that are specifically related to substituted letter detection, the left SPL and the left vOT, were less activated in dyslexic participants. These findings suggest that the left SPL, like the left vOT, may contribute to letter string processing.

Division of labor between the hemispheres is sometimes advantageous. Merola and Liederman (1985) have shown that adolescents' naming performance is superior when two different kinds of letter input are divided between the hemispheres than when both kinds of letter input are projected to a single hemisphere. We now investigated whether the advantage of between-hemisphere division of inputs increases from adolescence to adulthood; occurs when a secondary, concurrent verbal memory task is added; and corresponds with superior performance on the secondary task. Results indicated that use of the hemispheres as insulated work stations increased from adolescence to adulthood, and did not diminish when memory was stressed. However, between-hemisphere division of labor for the primary task did not facilitate secondary task performance.