New insights into name category-related effects: is the Age of Acquisition a possible factor?
New insights into name category-related effects: is the Age of Acquisition a possible factor?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1744-9081-5-33
复制
发表时间：
2009-07-29
影响因子：
5.1
通讯作者：
Proverbio, Alice Mado
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Adorni, Roberta;Proverbio, Alice Mado
背景：电生理、血液动力学和神经心理学的研究已经提供了属于不同语义类别(如动物、工具、动作)的词在大脑中呈现方式的分离证据。本研究的目的是探讨一个词的语义域是否可以独立于任何其他因素影响事件相关电位成分的波幅和潜伏期。方法：对16名被试进行词汇判断任务(词/非词辨别)，包括100个词(动植物名称)。这项任务让我们能够独立于任务要求，评估属于不同类别(动物群和植物群)的单词之间的加工差异。所有刺激在长度、出现频率、熟悉度和可想象性方面都达到了平衡。结果：我们的研究结果表明，早在刺激后200ms，这两个类别就被区分开来，左侧枕颞区(即BA37和BA20)对植物名称的反应更大。在顶中后N400、后P300和Lp前部成分的波幅上也观察到与类别相关的ERP差异。对表示动物群的词语的行为反应比对表示植物区系的词语更准确。结论：总体来说，似乎更容易获得动物群的词汇属性，这可能是因为它们在生物学上的相关地位。根据不同因素可能发挥的作用，对结果进行了讨论。
Background: Electrophysiological, hemodynamic and neuropsychological studies have provided evidence of dissociation in the way words belonging to different semantic categories (e. g., animals, tools, actions) are represented in the brain. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether a word's semantic domain may affect the amplitude and latency of ERP components, independently of any other factor.Methods: EEGs were recorded from 16 volunteers engaged in a lexical decision task (word/non-word discrimination) involving 100 words (flora and fauna names). This task allowed us to evaluate differences in processing between words belonging to different categories (fauna vs. flora) independently of task demands. All stimuli were balanced in terms of length, frequency of occurrence, familiarity and imageability. Low Resolution Electromagnetic Tomography (LORETA) was performed on ERP difference waves of interest.Results: Our findings showed that the two categories were discriminated as early as 200 ms post-stimulus, with larger responses to flora names over the left occipito-temporal areas, namely BA37 and BA20. Category-related ERP differences were also observed in the amplitudes of the later centro-parietal N400, posterior P300 and anterior LP components. Behavioral responses to words denoting fauna were more accurate than to words denoting flora.Conclusion: Overall, it seems that it was easier to access the lexical properties of fauna, probably because of their biologically relevant status. The results are discussed in the light of the possible role played by different factors.