↓ Skip to main content

An ERP study of effects of regularity and consistency in delayed naming and lexicality judgment in a logographic writing system

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An ERP study of effects of regularity and consistency in delayed naming and lexicality judgment in a logographic writing system
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00315
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yen Na Yum, Sam-Po Law, I-Fan Su, Kai-Yan Dustin Lau, Kwan Nok Mo

Abstract

Phonological access is an important component in theories and models of word reading. However, phonological regularity and consistency effects are not clearly separable in alphabetic writing systems. We investigated these effects in Chinese, where the two variables are operationally distinct. In this orthographic system, regularity is defined as the congruence between the pronunciation of a complex character (or phonogram), and that of its phonetic radical, while phonological consistency indexes the proportion of orthographic neighbors that share the same pronunciation as the phonogram. In the current investigation, regularity and consistency were contrasted in an event-related potential (ERP) study using a lexical decision (LD) task and a delayed naming (DN) task with native Chinese readers. ERP results showed that effects of regularity occurred early after stimulus onset and were long-lasting. Regular characters elicited larger N170, smaller P200, and larger N400 compared to irregular characters. In contrast, significant effects of consistency were only seen at the P200 and consistent characters showed a greater P200 than inconsistent characters. Thus, both the time course and the direction of the effects indicated that regularity and consistency operated under different mechanisms and were distinct constructs. Additionally, both of these phonological effects were only found in the DN task and absent in LD, suggesting that phonological access was non-obligatory for LD. The study demonstrated cross-language variability in how phonological information was accessed from print and how task demands could influence this process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Unknown 56 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 17 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 32%
Linguistics 8 14%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 18 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 April 2014.
All research outputs
#22,350,992
of 24,943,708 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#26,917
of 33,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,167
of 232,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#263
of 303 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,943,708 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 232,582 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 303 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.