Do Different Types of Script Induce Differences in Hemispheric Lateralization During Reading? Evidence from a Cross Linguistic MEG Study.
-
1
New York University Abu Dhabi, Psychology, United Arab Emirates
Despite many different scripts being actively in use today, they can be roughly divided into two different categories depending on the type of information about words they privilege: sound, as in alphabetic (e.g.: English) and abjad (e.g.: Arabic) scripts, or meaning, as in logographic scripts (e.g.: Chinese). These different types of scripts are sometimes reported to induce different patterns of hemispheric brain activity early in the visual pathway. A large body of evidence in this debate pertains to findings of hemispheric asymmetries in the N/M170 response during reading of alphabetic versus logographic scripts. Left lateralization effects in the N/M170 are commonly observed during reading of alphabetic scripts, and have been attributed either to the process of mapping the visual form of words to their pronunciation (a script-to sound mapping hypothesis), or to a more general expertise acquired in the visual domain (a visual familiarity hypothesis). The findings regarding the reading of logographic scripts are more equivocal, with some studies reporting a bilateral N/M170 response (as predicted by the script-to-sound mapping hypothesis, since the process of mapping script units to sound units is not engaged by the nature of logographic scripts) whereas others observe a left-lateralized N/M170 response (as predicted by the visual familiarity hypothesis). In order to test these two different putative mechanisms, we conducted an MEG study using a cross-linguistic design comparing the reading of Chinese, a logographic script, with English. In order to isolate script differences from the language difference, we also tested the reading of Pinyin, an auxiliary alphabetic system for transliterating Chinese words into the Latin script. In addition, in order to test the plasticity implied by the visual familiarity hypothesis, we also recruited a group of native speakers of English who had been learning to speak and read Chinese for at least one year. The experiment employed a 3 (group: English, Chinese, and Chinese-learner) x 3 (stimulus type: English words, Chinese words and Chinese words written in pinyin) factorial design, and used an occasional one-back repetition detection task in which participants were asked to passively view the stimuli on the screen unless prompted for a one-back repetition detection stimulus. Left-lateralized responses were obtained in all conditions involving alphabetic stimuli (English words and Chinese words written in Pinyin) across all three groups of participants. Bilateral responses were obtained in the Chinese word condition for the English-speaking and Chinese-learner groups, but not for the Chinese group, which showed a left-lateralized response to Chinese words. These results are more in line with the visual familiarity hypothesis.
Keywords:
MEG,
Hemispheric Lateralisation,
reading,
logographic scripts,
M170
Conference:
3rd International Conference on Educational Neuroscience, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 11 Mar - 12 Mar, 2018.
Presentation Type:
Poster Presentation
Topic:
Educational Neuroscience
Citation:
Wu
K and
Almeida
D
(2018). Do Different Types of Script Induce Differences in Hemispheric Lateralization During Reading? Evidence from a Cross Linguistic MEG Study..
Conference Abstract:
3rd International Conference on Educational Neuroscience.
doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2018.225.00012
Copyright:
The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers.
They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.
The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.
Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.
For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.
Received:
26 Feb 2018;
Published Online:
14 Dec 2018.
*
Correspondence:
Prof. Diogo Almeida, New York University Abu Dhabi, Psychology, Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, 129188, United Arab Emirates, diogo@nyu.edu