Interactions of reading and semantics along the ventral visual processing stream

ABSTRACT

Converging evidence supports a distributed-plus-hub view of semantic processing, in which there are distributed modular semantic sub-systems (e.g., for shape, colour, and action) connected to an amodal semantic hub. Furthermore, object semantic processing of colour and shape, and lexical reading and identification, are processed mainly along the ventral stream, while action semantic processing occurs mainly along the dorsal stream. In Experiment 1, participants read a prime word that required imagining either the object or action referent, and then named a lexical word target. In Experiments 2 and 3, participants performed a lexical decision task (LDT) with the same targets as in Experiment 1, in the presence of foils that were legal nonwords (NW; Experiment 2) or pseudohomophones (PH; Experiment 3). Semantic priming was similar in effect size regardless of prime type for naming, but was greater for object primes than action primes for the LDT with PH foils, suggesting a shared-stream advantage when the task demands focus on orthographic lexical processing. These experiments extend the distributed-plus-hub model, and provide a novel paradigm for further research.

KEYWORDS:

• Semantic priming
• object and action processing
• lexical reading and identification
• ventral and dorsal visual processing streams

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 To address concerns about the inclusion of the same targets in all four blocks, an extra factor of Block (1, 2, 3, or 4) was included in an additional model. The effect of Block was not significant, Estimate = −3.854, SE = 4.530, t = −0.851, while Priming was significant with block included in the model, Estimate = 11.566, SE = 3.741, t = 3.091, demonstrating that Priming accounted for variance over and above across-block repetition priming.

2 In order to verify that subject level differences in subjective ratings of relatedness between the Object and Action Prime-Target pairs were not biasing the Priming effect towards either the Object or Action primes, an additional model was run with the ratings used in place of the dichotomous Priming factor, where Unrelated was given a value of 0, and Related pairs were assigned a value from 1 to 5 based on the relatedness rating given by the participant, for a continuous measure of prime-target relatedness. With this variable in place of the dichotomous Priming factor, the same pattern of effects was observed, except that the Prime Type x Counterbalance interaction was not significant, Estimate = 30.229, SE = 18.500, t = 1.634.

3 Given that significant effects of interest were not found for LDT with NW foils, additional models including block and including relatedness ratings are not included as they were in Experiment 1.

4 To address concerns about the inclusion of the same targets in all four blocks, an extra factor of Block (1, 2, 3, or 4) was included in an additional model. The effect of Block was significant, Estimate = −14.951, SE = 3.715, t = −4.024, and the Priming x Prime Type interaction was also significant with block included in the model, Estimate = 22.960, SE = 10.878, t = 2.111, demonstrating that the Priming x Prime Type interaction accounted for variance over and above across-block repetition priming.

5 In order to verify that subject level differences in subjective ratings of relatedness between the Object and Action Prime-Target pairs were not biasing the Priming effect towards either the Object or Action primes, an additional model was run with the ratings used in place of the dichotomous Priming factor, where Unrelated was given a value of 0, and Related pairs were assigned a value from 1 to 5 based on the relatedness rating given by the participant, for a continuous measure of prime-target relatedness. With this variable in place of the dichotomous Priming factor, the same pattern of effects was observed, except that the Prime Type effect was not significant, Estimate = −19.182, SE = 11.036, t = −1.738.

6 To address concerns about the inclusion of the same targets in all four blocks, an extra factor of Block (1, 2, 3, or 4) was included in an additional model. The effect of Block was significant, Estimate = −15.771, SE = 3.598, t = −4.383, and the Priming x Prime Type interaction was also significant with block included in the model, Estimate = 19.414, SE = 7.582, t = 2.561, demonstrating that the Priming x Prime Type interaction accounted for variance over and above across-block repetition priming.

7 In order to verify that subject level differences in subjective ratings of relatedness between the Object and Action Prime-Target pairs were not biasing the Priming effect towards either the Object or Action primes, an additional model was run with the ratings used in place of the dichotomous Priming factor, where Unrelated was given a value of 0, and Related pairs were assigned a value from 1 to 5 based on the relatedness rating given by the participant, for a continuous measure of prime-target relatedness. With this variable in place of the dichotomous Priming factor, the same pattern of effects was observed, except that the Prime Type effect was not significant, Estimate = −15.563, SE = 9.536, t = −1.632.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada through Alexander Graham Bell Canada Graduate Scholarships to Josh Neudorf and Chelsea Ekstrand, an Undergraduate Student Research Award to Shaylyn Kress, and a Discovery Grant [grant number 18968-2013-21] to the senior author Ron Borowsky.