I.P. Pavlov Journal of Higher Nervous ActivityI.P. Pavlov Journal of Higher Nervous ActivityЖурнал высшей нервной деятельности им. И.П. Павлова0044-46773034-5316The Russian Academy of Sciences65208210.31857/S0044467724040079ФИЗИОЛОГИЯ ВЫСШЕЙ НЕРВНОЙ (КОГНИТИВНОЙ) ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ ЧЕЛОВЕКАФИЗИОЛОГИЯ ВЫСШЕЙ НЕРВНОЙ (КОГНИТИВНОЙ) ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ ЧЕЛОВЕКАResearch ArticleRight is it right? Influence of the type of motor response on behavioral and electrophysiological indicators during the orthographic decision taskПравый – значит правильный? Влияние типа моторного ответа на поведенческие и электрофизиологические показатели при выполнении задачи орфографического решенияLarionovaE. V.ЛарионоваЕ. В.
Russian Federation
larionova.ekaterin@gmail.comGarakhZh. V.ГарахЖ. В.
Russian Federation
larionova.ekaterin@gmail.comLuschekinaE. A.ЛущекинаЕ. А.
Russian Federation
larionova.ekaterin@gmail.comInstitute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of SciencesИнститут высшей нервной деятельности и нейрофизиологии РАН0911202474446147002022025Copyright ©; 2024, Russian Academy of SciencesCopyright ©; 2024, Российская академия наук2024Russian Academy of SciencesРоссийская академия наукhttps://innoscience.ru/0044-4677/article/view/652082

The role of the sensorimotor component in the processing of verbal information is currently widely discussed. We hypothesize that the type of motor response may influence behavioral and electrophysiological performance in an orthographic decision task. Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded in 42 right-handers during an orthographic decision task. Half of the participants were instructed to press the right button with their right hand upon encountering correctly spelled words and the left button with their left hand upon encountering misspelled words, while the other half followed the opposite instruction. The motor response to correctly spelled words was shorter for the dominant hand compared to the non-dominant hand, which may be due to the coincidence of semantic and motor representations (stimulus-response compatibility effect). In addition, reaction times to incorrectly spelled words were longer than to correctly spelled words only in the group of participants who responded with their dominant hand to correctly spelled words. The P200 and N400 ERP components did not depend on the type of motor response. However, in the group of participants who pressed correctly spelled words with their right hand, the amplitude of the P600 component was greater for misspelled words compared to correctly spelled words. Thus, the type of motor response influenced the effects associated with word spelling recognition.

В настоящее время широко обсуждается роль сенсомоторного компонента в обработке вербальной информации. Мы предполагаем, что тип моторного ответа может влиять на поведенческие и электрофизиологические показатели в задаче орфографического решения. Связанные с событиями потенциалы (ССП) были зарегистрированы у 42 правшей во время выполнения задачи на определение правильности написания слов. Половине участников было сказано нажимать правой рукой на правильно написанные слова и левой – на слова, написанные с ошибкой, а другой половине – наоборот. Моторная реакция на правильно написанные слова была короче для ведущей руки по сравнению с неведущей, что может быть обусловлено совпадением семантических и двигательных репрезентаций (эффект совместимости стимула и реакции). Кроме того, время реакции на неправильно написанные слова было больше, чем на правильно написанные слова только в группе участников, отвечавших ведущей рукой на правильно написанные слова. Компоненты ССП Р200 и N400 не зависели от типа моторного ответа. Однако у группы участников, нажимавших правой рукой на правильно написанные слова, амплитуда компонента Р600 была больше на слова, написанные с ошибками, по сравнению с правильно написанными словами. Таким образом, тип моторного ответа влиял на эффекты, связанные с распознаванием правильности написания слов.

ERPEEGorthographyspellingmotor responsestimulus-response compatibilityembodied cognitionССПЭЭГорфографияправописаниемоторный ответсовместимость стимул-реакциятеория воплощенного познанияМинистерство науки и высшего образования Российской ФедерацииMinistry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian FederationБойцова Ю.А., Старченко М.Г. Потенциалы, связанные с событиями при выполнении теста Go/NoGo в подгруппах испытуемых с разным уровнем выраженности вербальной креативности. Журнал высшей нервной деятельности им И.П. Павлова. 2020. 70 (5): 609–615.Гальперина Е.И., Кручинина О.В., Станкова Е.П., Корнев А.Н. Поздние компоненты связанных с событиями потенциалов у детей, подростков и взрослых при чтении слов. Журнал высшей нервной дея тельности им И.П. Павлова. 2021. 71 (4): 500–514.Bakos S., Landerl K., Bartling J., Schulte-Körne G., Moll K. Neurophysiological correlates of word processing deficits in isolated reading and isolated spelling disorders. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2018. 129 (3): 526–540.Bechtold L., Cosper S.H., Malyshevskaya A., Montefinese M., Morucci P., Niccolai V., Repetto C., Zappa A., Shtyrov Y. Brain Signatures of Embodied Semantics and Language: A Consensus Paper. Journal of cognition. 2023. 6 (1): 61.Bermúdez-Margaretto B., Beltrán D., Shtyrov Y., Dominguez A., Cuetos F. Neurophysiological Correlates of Top-Down Phonological and Semantic Influence during the Orthographic Processing of Novel Visual Word-Forms. Brain Sciences. 2020. 10 (10): 1–19.Briesemeister B.B., Hofmann M.J., Tamm S., Kuchinke L., Braun M., Jacobs A.M. The pseudohomophone effect: evidence for an orthography-phonology-conflict. Neuroscience letters. 2009. 455 (2): 124–128.Carreiras M., Vergara M., Barber H. Early event-related potential effects of syllabic processing during visual word recognition. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 2005. 17 (11): 1803–1817.Chouamo A. K., Griego S., Susana Martinez Lopez F. Reaction time and hand dominance. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2021.Contier F., Weymar M., Wartenburger I., Rabovsky M. Sustained Attention as Measured by Reaction Time Variability Is a Strong Modulator for the P600, but Not the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2022. 34 (12): 2297–2310.Corballis M.C. From mouth to hand: Gesture, speech, and the evolution of right-handedness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2003. 26 (02).Currò T., Candidi M., Calvo-Merino B. Inhibitory mechanisms are affected by stimulus-response congruency. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences. 2023. 4. 100108.Dehaene S., Dupoux E., Mehler J. Is numerical comparison digital? Analogical and symbolic effects in two-digit number comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1990. 16 (3): 626–641.Gevers W., Reynvoet B., Fias W. The mental representation of ordinal sequences is spatially organized. Cognition. 2003. 87 (3):B87–B95.Gevers W., Santens S., Dhooge E., Chen Q., Bossche L. Van den, Fias W., Verguts T. Verbal-spatial and visuospatial coding of number–space interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2010. 139 (1): 180–190.González-Garrido A.A., Gómez-Velázquez F.R., Rodríguez-Santillán E. Orthographic Recognition in Late Adolescents. Clinical EEG and Neuroscience. 2013. 45 (2): 113–121.González-Garrido A.A., Gómez-Velázquez F.R., Zarabozo D., Zarabozo-Hurtado D., Joshi R.M. ERP effects of word exposure and orthographic knowledge on lexical decisions in Spanish. Journal of Behavioral and Brain Science. 2015. 5 (6). 185–193.Grainger J., Holcomb P.J. Watching the Word Go by: On the Time-course of Component Processes in Visual Word Recognition. Language and linguistics compass. 2009. 3 (1): 128–156.Gut M., Szumska I., Wasilewska M., Jaśkowski P. Are low and high number magnitudes processed differently while resolving the conflict evoked by the SNARC effect? International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2012. 85 (1): 1: 7-16.Hasko S., Groth K., Bruder J., Bartling J., Schulte-Körne G. The time course of reading processes in children with and without dyslexia: an ERP study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2013. 7: 570.Hutchinson S., Louwerse M.M. Language statistics explain the spatial–numerical association of response codes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2013. 21 (2): 470–478.Kong F. Space–valence associations depend on handedness: evidence from a bimanual output task. Psychological Research. 2013. 77 (6): 773–779.Kourtis D., Vingerhoets G. Evidence for dissociable effects of handedness and consistency of hand preference in allocation of attention and movement planning: An EEG investigation. Neuropsychologia. 2016. 93. 493–500.Kumar S., Yoon E.Y., Humphreys G.W. Perceptual and motor-based responses to hand actions on objects: evidence from ERPs. Experimental Brain Research. 2012. 220 (2): 153–164.Kutas M., Federmeier K.D. Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2000. 4 (12): 463–470.Kutas M., Van Petten C.K., Kluender R. Psycholinguistics Electrified II (1994–2005). Handbook of Psycholinguistics. 2006. 659–724.Larionova E., Garakh Z., Martynova O. Top-down modulation of brain responses in spelling error recognition. Acta Psychologica. 2023. 235. 103891.Larionova E.V., Martynova O.V. Frequency Effects on Spelling Error Recognition: An ERP Study. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022. 13. 1977.Larionova E., Rebreikina A., Martynova O. Electrophysiological signatures of spelling sensitivity development from primary school age to adulthood. Scientific Reports. 2024. 14. 7585.Leckey M., Federmeier K.D. The P3b and P600(s): Positive contributions to language comprehension. Psychophysiology. 2020. 57 (7).Macnamara A., Keage H.A.D., Loetscher T. Mapping of non-numerical domains on space: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Experimental Brain Research. 2017. 236 (2): 335–346.Montant M., Schön D., Anton J.L., Ziegler J.C. Orthographic Contamination of Broca’s Area. Front Psychol. Frontiers in Psychology. 2011. 2. 378.Osterhout L., Holcomb P.J. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language. 1992. 31 (6): 785–806.Peirce J., Gray J.R., Simpson S., MacAskill M., Höchenberger R., Sogo H., Kastman E., Lindeløv J.K. PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior research methods. 2019. 51 (1): 195–203.Proctor R.W., Cho Y.S. Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin. 2006. 132 (3): 416–442.Pulvermüller F. Words in the brain’s language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1999. 22 (2): 253–279.Sánchez-Vincitore L. V., Avery T., Froud K. Word-related N170 responses to implicit and explicit reading tasks in neoliterate adults. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2018. 42 (3): 321–332.Sassenhagen J., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I. The P600 as a correlate of ventral attention network reorientation. Cortex. 2015. 66. A3–A20.Sellaro R., Treccani B., Job R., Cubelli R. Spatial coding of object typical size: evidence for a SNARC-like effect. Psychological Research. 2014. 79 (6): 950–962.Tucker M., Ellis R. On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1998. 24 (3): 830–846.Uccula A., Enna M., Treccani B. Compatibility between response position and either object typical size or semantic category: SNARCand MARC-like effects in primary school children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2020. 189. 104682.Van de Meerendonk N., Indefrey P., Chwilla D.J., Kolk H.H.J. Monitoring in language perception: Electrophysiological and hemodynamic responses to spelling violations. NeuroImage. 2011. 54 (3): 2350–2363.Wang Y., Jiang M., Huang Y., Qiu P. An ERP Study on the Role of Phonological Processing in Reading Two-Character Compound Chinese Words of High and Low Frequency. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021. 12. 490.Yang Y., Weiss P.H., Fink G.R., Chen Q. Hand preference for the visual and auditory modalities in humans. Scientific reports. 2021. 11 (1): 7868.Zhang Z., Zeidman P., Nelissen N., Filippini N., Diedrichsen J., Bracci S., Friston K., Rounis E. Neural Correlates of Hand–Object Congruency Effects during Action Planning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2021. 33 (8): 1487–1503.