title: "When" Does Picture Naming Take Longer Than Word Reading?
abstract: 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.
authors.affiliation: Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS, LPC UMR 7290Marseille, France; Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of GenevaGeneva, Switzerland.
authors.forename: Andrea
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Valente
authors.affiliation: Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS, LPC UMR 7290 Marseille, France.
authors.forename: Svetlana
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Pinet
authors.affiliation: Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS, LPC UMR 7290 Marseille, France.
authors.forename: F-Xavier
authors.initials: FX
authors.lastname: Alario
authors.affiliation: Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva Geneva, Switzerland.
authors.forename: Marina
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Laganaro
keywords: ERPs; object naming; reading aloud; topographic analysis; word production
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 1999 May;11(3):235-60
references.pmid: 10402254
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2012 Apr 2;60(2):1462-77
references.pmid: 22281671
references.citation: Comput Intell Neurosci. 2011;2011:813870
references.pmid: 21253358
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2010 Jan;74(1):71-81
references.pmid: 19002713
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2004 Mar;32(2):212-22
references.pmid: 15190714
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1989 Jan;96(1):5-24
references.pmid: 2928419
references.citation: Cognition. 1992 Mar;42(1-3):61-105
references.pmid: 1582161
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2011 Jun;49(7):1910-22
references.pmid: 21439991
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 1999 Nov;103(1-2):125-48
references.pmid: 10555489
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2011 Aug 1;57(3):1243-50
references.pmid: 21600993
references.citation: Front Neurosci. 2014 Dec 04;8:390
references.pmid: 25538546
references.citation: Behav Res Methods. 2007 Nov;39(4):859-62
references.pmid: 18183901
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 2007 May;44(3):436-43
references.pmid: 17371492
references.citation: Brain Topogr. 2008 Jun;20(4):249-64
references.pmid: 18347966
references.citation: J Neurosci Methods. 2007 Aug 15;164(1):177-90
references.pmid: 17517438
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 Sep;29(5):850-60
references.pmid: 14516218
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Oct;19(5):955-61
references.pmid: 22753046
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 1971 Mar;9(1):97-113
references.pmid: 5146491
references.citation: Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1999 Aug;31(3):531-52
references.pmid: 10502875
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2005 Jun;17(6):884-92
references.pmid: 15969907
references.citation: Int J Neurosci. 2004 Nov;114(11):1401-32
references.pmid: 15636353
references.citation: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1995 Jul;42(7):658-65
references.pmid: 7622149
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2006 Jan 15;29(2):643-8
references.pmid: 16137894
references.citation: Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2003 Feb;35(1):158-67
references.pmid: 12723790
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2001 Jan;108(1):204-56
references.pmid: 11212628
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 2015 Oct;25(10):3343-55
references.pmid: 25005037
references.citation: Cognition. 2004 May-Jun;92(1-2):101-44
references.pmid: 15037128
references.citation: Annee Psychol. 1964;64:21-46
references.pmid: 14314722
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2011 Oct 12;2:255
references.pmid: 22016740
references.citation: Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004 Aug;36(3):516-24
references.pmid: 15641440
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1989 Mar;118(1):13-42
references.pmid: 2522504