Cargando…

“When” Does Picture Naming Take Longer Than Word Reading?

Differences between the cognitive processes involved in word reading and picture naming are well established (e.g., visual or lexico-semantic stages). Still, it is commonly thought that retrieval of phonological forms is shared across tasks. We report a test of this second hypothesis based on the ti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Valente, Andrea, Pinet, Svetlana, Alario, F.-Xavier, Laganaro, Marina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4724759/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26834690
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00031
_version_ 1782411582096015360
author Valente, Andrea
Pinet, Svetlana
Alario, F.-Xavier
Laganaro, Marina
author_facet Valente, Andrea
Pinet, Svetlana
Alario, F.-Xavier
Laganaro, Marina
author_sort Valente, Andrea
collection PubMed
description Differences between the cognitive processes involved in word reading and picture naming are well established (e.g., visual or lexico-semantic stages). Still, it is commonly thought that retrieval of phonological forms is shared across tasks. We report a test of this second hypothesis based on the time course of electroencephalographic (EEG) neural activity, reasoning that similar EEG patterns might index similar processing stages. Seventeen participants named objects and read aloud the corresponding words while their behavior and EEG activity were recorded. The latter was analyzed from stimulus onset onward (stimulus-locked analysis) and from response onset backward (response-locked analysis), using non-parametric statistics and the spatio-temporal segmentation of ERPs. Behavioral results confirmed that reading entails shorter latencies than naming. The analysis of EEG activity within the stimulus-to-response period allowed to distinguish three phases, broadly successive. Early on, we observed identical distribution of electric field potentials (i.e., topographies) albeit with large amplitude divergences between tasks. Then, we observed sustained cross-task differences in topographies accompanied by extended amplitude differences. Finally, the two tasks again revealed the same topographies, with significant cross-task delays in their onsets and offsets, and still significant amplitude differences. In the response-locked ERPs, the common topography displayed an offset closer to response articulation in word reading compared with picture naming, that is the transition between the offset of this shared map and the onset of articulation was significantly faster in word reading. The results suggest that the degree of cross-task similarity varies across time. The first phase suggests similar visual processes of variable intensity and time course across tasks, while the second phase suggests marked differences. Finally, similarities and differences within the third phase are compatible with a shared processing stage (likely phonological processes) with different temporal properties (onset/offset) across tasks. Overall, our results provide an overview of when, between stimulus and response, word reading and picture naming are subtended by shared- versus task-specific neural signatures. This in turn is suggestive of when the two tasks involve similar vs. different cognitive processes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4724759
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47247592016-01-31 “When” Does Picture Naming Take Longer Than Word Reading? Valente, Andrea Pinet, Svetlana Alario, F.-Xavier Laganaro, Marina Front Psychol Psychology Differences between the cognitive processes involved in word reading and picture naming are well established (e.g., visual or lexico-semantic stages). Still, it is commonly thought that retrieval of phonological forms is shared across tasks. We report a test of this second hypothesis based on the time course of electroencephalographic (EEG) neural activity, reasoning that similar EEG patterns might index similar processing stages. Seventeen participants named objects and read aloud the corresponding words while their behavior and EEG activity were recorded. The latter was analyzed from stimulus onset onward (stimulus-locked analysis) and from response onset backward (response-locked analysis), using non-parametric statistics and the spatio-temporal segmentation of ERPs. Behavioral results confirmed that reading entails shorter latencies than naming. The analysis of EEG activity within the stimulus-to-response period allowed to distinguish three phases, broadly successive. Early on, we observed identical distribution of electric field potentials (i.e., topographies) albeit with large amplitude divergences between tasks. Then, we observed sustained cross-task differences in topographies accompanied by extended amplitude differences. Finally, the two tasks again revealed the same topographies, with significant cross-task delays in their onsets and offsets, and still significant amplitude differences. In the response-locked ERPs, the common topography displayed an offset closer to response articulation in word reading compared with picture naming, that is the transition between the offset of this shared map and the onset of articulation was significantly faster in word reading. The results suggest that the degree of cross-task similarity varies across time. The first phase suggests similar visual processes of variable intensity and time course across tasks, while the second phase suggests marked differences. Finally, similarities and differences within the third phase are compatible with a shared processing stage (likely phonological processes) with different temporal properties (onset/offset) across tasks. Overall, our results provide an overview of when, between stimulus and response, word reading and picture naming are subtended by shared- versus task-specific neural signatures. This in turn is suggestive of when the two tasks involve similar vs. different cognitive processes. Frontiers Media S.A. 2016-01-25 /pmc/articles/PMC4724759/ /pubmed/26834690 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00031 Text en Copyright © 2016 Valente, Pinet, Alario and Laganaro. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Valente, Andrea
Pinet, Svetlana
Alario, F.-Xavier
Laganaro, Marina
“When” Does Picture Naming Take Longer Than Word Reading?
title “When” Does Picture Naming Take Longer Than Word Reading?
title_full “When” Does Picture Naming Take Longer Than Word Reading?
title_fullStr “When” Does Picture Naming Take Longer Than Word Reading?
title_full_unstemmed “When” Does Picture Naming Take Longer Than Word Reading?
title_short “When” Does Picture Naming Take Longer Than Word Reading?
title_sort “when” does picture naming take longer than word reading?
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4724759/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26834690
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00031
work_keys_str_mv AT valenteandrea whendoespicturenamingtakelongerthanwordreading
AT pinetsvetlana whendoespicturenamingtakelongerthanwordreading
AT alariofxavier whendoespicturenamingtakelongerthanwordreading
AT laganaromarina whendoespicturenamingtakelongerthanwordreading