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 Sciences69642410.31857/S0044467725060058ФИЗИОЛОГИЯ ВЫСШЕЙ НЕРВНОЙ (КОГНИТИВНОЙ) ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ ЧЕЛОВЕКАФИЗИОЛОГИЯ ВЫСШЕЙ НЕРВНОЙ (КОГНИТИВНОЙ) ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ ЧЕЛОВЕКАResearch ArticleThe role of orthographic knowledge, vocabulary size, and print exposure in orthographic processing during reading: Evidence from event-related potentialsРоль орфографических знаний, словарного запаса и читательского опыта в орфографической обработке во время чтения: данные связанных с событиями потенциаловLarionovaE. V.ЛарионоваЕ. В.larionova.ekaterin@gmail.comInstitute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology RASИнститут высшей нервной деятельности и нейрофизиологии РАН15112025756VOL 75, NO6 (2025)ТОМ 75, №6 (2025)72173518112025Copyright ©; 2025, Russian Academy of SciencesCopyright ©; 2025, Российская академия наук2025Russian Academy of SciencesРоссийская академия наукhttps://innoscience.ru/0044-4677/article/view/696424

Electrophysiological studies of visual word recognition rarely account for individual differences in participants’ language skills. However, spelling knowledge, vocabulary size, and print exposure may significantly influence these processes. In the present study, we analyzed event-related potentials (ERPs) during passive reading of correctly and incorrectly spelled words: the first experiment (N = 26) assessed spelling knowledge, and the second (N = 26) evaluated vocabulary size and print exposure. In the first experiment, orthographic effects for the P200 component (larger amplitude for correctly spelled words) and the N400 component (larger amplitude for misspelled words) were observed only in participants with high levels of spelling knowledge. In the second experiment, participants with a high vocabulary size showed greater P200 amplitude for correctly spelled words, whereas those with a low vocabulary size showed the opposite pattern. N400 effects differed in topography depending on print exposure: less experienced readers showed effects in fronto-central regions, while more experienced readers showed effects in the left temporo-occipital area. No associations were found between any language skill and the late P600 component. Thus, spelling knowledge, vocabulary size, and print exposure primarily influence early stages of orthographic processing, as reflected in the modulation of the P200 and N400 components, indicating greater automation of these processes in more skilled readers. These findings highlight the importance of considering individual differences in language skills when investigating mechanisms of visual word recognition.

Электрофизиологические исследования зрительного распознавания слов редко учитывают различия в языковых навыках участников. Тем не менее такие характеристики, как уровень орфографических знаний, словарный запас и читательский опыт, могут существенно влиять на эти процессы. В настоящем исследовании анализировали связанные с событиями потенциалы (ССП) при пассивном чтении слов, написанных правильно и с ошибками: в первом эксперименте (N = 26) оценивали уровень орфографических знаний, во втором (N = 26) – размер словарного запаса и читательский опыт. В первом эксперименте орфографические эффекты компонентов P200 (большая амплитуда на правильно написанные слова) и N400 (большая амплитуда на слова с ошибками) наблюдались только у участников с высоким уровнем орфографических знаний. Во втором эксперименте в группе с высоким словарным запасом амплитуда P200 была выше на правильно написанные слова, тогда как в группе с низким запасом – наоборот, выше на неправильно написанные слова. Эффекты N400 различались по топографии у участников с разным читательским опытом: у менее опытных читателей – во фронто-центральных отведениях, у более опытных – в левой височно-затылочной области. Для поздней волны P600 связей с языковыми навыками участников не наблюдалось. Таким образом, орфографические знания, словарный запас и читательский опыт преимущественно влияют на более автоматические этапы орфографической обработки, что проявляется в модуляции компонентов P200 и N400. Полученные данные подчеркивают важность учета индивидуальных различий в языковых навыках при изучении зрительного распознавания слов.

ERPEEGorthographyspellingprint exposurevocabularyspelling skillsreadingССПЭЭГорфографияправописаниечитательский опытсловарный запасорфографические навыкичтениеРабота выполнена в рамках госзадания Министерства образования и науки Российской Федерации.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 деятельности им И.П. Павлова. 2021. 71 (4): 500–514.Головин Г.В. Измерение пассивного словарного запаса русского языка. Социо- и психолингвистические исследования. 2015. 3: 148–159.Ефимова В.Л., Лысова И.А. Акустические стволовые вызванные потенциалы у детей с аутизмом и расстройствами речевого развития до и после тренинга по методу А. Томатиса. Комплексные исследования детства. 2019. 1 (2): 98–106.Ларионова Е.В., Гарах Ж.В., Лущекина Е.А. Правый – значит правильный? Влияние типа моторного ответа на поведенческие и электрофизиологические показатели при выполнении задачи орфографического решения. Журнал высшей нервной деятельности им. И.П. Павлова. 2024. 74 (4): 461–470.Ребрейкина А.Б., Ларионова Е.В., Мартынова О.В. Динамика вызванных потенциалов в процессе становления грамотности. Современная зарубежная психология. 2020. 9 (2): 21–33.Савельева Н.А., Анисимов Г.В., Калашникова Т.П. Показатели когнитивных вызванных потенциалов у детей с речевым дизонтогенезом. Фундаментальные исследования. 2015. 1–2. 346–349.Чернова Д.А., Бахтурина П.В. Методика оценки читательского опыта: применение в психолингвистике и адаптация для русского языка. Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Язык и литература. 2023. 20 (4): 872–887.Andringa S., Olsthoorn N., van Beuningen C., Schoonen R., Hulstijn J. Determinants of success in native and non-native listening comprehension: an individual differences approach. Lang. Learn. 2012. 62: 49–78.Araújo S., Faísca L., Bramão I., Reis A., Petersson K.M. Lexical and sublexical orthographic processing: An ERP study with skilled and dyslexic adult readers. Brain Lang. 2015. 141: 16–27.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.Bent T., Baese-Berk M., Borrie S.A., McKee M. Individual differences in the perception of regional, nonnative, and disordered speech varieties. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2016. 140 (5): 3775–3786.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.Borgström K., von Koss Torkildsen J., Lindgren M. Substantial gains in word learning ability between 20 and 24 months: A longitudinal ERP study. Brain and Language. 2015. 149: 33–45.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.Brysbaert M., Sui L., Dirix N., Hintz F. Dutch author recognition test. Journal of Cognition. 2020. 3 (1): 6.Brysbaert M., Lagrou E., Stevens M. Visual word recognition in a second language: A test of the lexical entrenchment hypothesis with lexical decision times. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2017. 20 (3): 530–548.Chateau D., Jared D. Exposure to print and word recognition processes. Memory & cognition. 2000. 28 (1): 143–153.Coch D., Benoit C. N400 event-related potential and standardized measures of reading in late elementary school children: Correlated or independent? Mind, Brain, and Education. 2015. 9 (3): 145–153.Coch D, Mitra P. Word and pseudoword superiority effects reflected in the ERP waveform. Brain Res. 2010. 1329: 159–174.Cohen L., Lehericy S., Chochon F., Lemer C., Rivaud S., Dehaene S. Language-specific tuning of visual cortex? Functional properties of the visual word form area. Brain. 2002. 125 (5): 1054–1069.Demiralp T., Ademoglu A., Comerchero M., Polich J. Wavelet analysis of P3a and P3b. Brain Topography. 2001. 13: 251–267.Dew I.T.Z., Cabeza R. The porous boundaries between explicit and implicit memory: Behavioral and neural evidence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2011. 1224 (1): 174–190.Eskenazi M.A., Swischuk N.K., Folk J.R., Abraham A.N. Uninformative contexts support word learning for high-skill spellers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2018. 44 (12): 2019–2025.González-Garrido A.A., Gómez-Velázquez F.R., Rodríguez-Santillán E. Orthographic recognition in late adolescents: An assessment through event-related brain potentials. Clinical EEG and Neuroscience. 2014. 45 (2): 113–121.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.Hagen G., Gatherwright J., Lopez B., Polich J. P3a from visual stimuli: Task difficulty effects. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2006. 59 (1): 8–14.Huang S., Lin W., Xu M., Wang R., Cai Z.G. On the tip of the pen: Effects of character-level lexical variables and handwriter-level individual differences on orthographic retrieval difficulties in Chinese handwriting. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2021. 74 (9): 1497–1511.Jongman S.R., Khoe Y.H., Hintz F. Vocabulary size influences spontaneous speech in native language users: Validating the use of automatic speech recognition in individual differences research. Language and Speech. 2021. 64 (1): 35–51.Kemény F., Banfi C., Gangl M., Perchtold C.M., Papousek I., Moll K., Landerl K. Print-, sublexical and lexical processing in children with reading and/or spelling deficits: An ERP study. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2018. 130: 53–62.Khalifian N., Stites M.C., Laszlo S. Relationships between event-related potentials and behavioral and scholastic measures of reading ability: a large-scale, cross-sectional study. Dev. Sci. 2015. 19 (5): 723–740.Kutas M., Federmeier K.D. Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event related brain potential (ERP). Ann Rev Psychol. 2011. 62: 621–647.Larionova E., Garakh Z. Spelling principles matter: An ERP study investigating the processing of different types of pseudohomophones. Brain Research. 2024. 1839: 149012.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.Leslie L., Thimke B. The use of orthographic knowledge in beginning reading. Journal of Reading Behavior. 1986. 18 (3): 229–241.Li J., Hiersche K.J., Saygin Z.M. Demystifying visual word form area visual and nonvisual response properties with precision fMRI. iScience. 2024. 27 (12).Lowder M.W., Gordon P.C. Print exposure modulates the effects of repetition priming during sentence reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2017. 24: 1935–1942.Mainz N., Shao Z., Brysbaert M., Meyer A.S. Vocabulary knowledge predicts lexical processing: Evidence from a group of participants with diverse educational backgrounds. Frontiers in Psychology. 2017. 8: 1164.Mano Q.R., Guerin J.M. Direct and indirect effects of print exposure on silent reading fluency. Reading and Writing. 2018. 31: 483–502.Mar R.A., Rain M. Narrative fiction and expository nonfiction differentially predict verbal ability. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2015. 19 (6): 419–433.Martin-Chang S.L., Gould O.N. Revisiting print exposure: Exploring differential links to vocabulary, comprehension and reading rate. Journal of Research in Reading. 2008. 31 (3): 273–284.Maurer U., Brandeis D., McCandliss B.D. Fast, visual specialization for reading in English revealed by the topography of the N170 ERP response. Behavioral and brain functions. 2005. 1 (1): 1–12.van de Meerendonk N., Chwilla D.J., Kolk H.H.J. States of indecision in the brain: ERP reflections of syntactic agreement violations versus visual degradation. Neuropsychologia. 2013. 51 (8): 1383–1396.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. et al. PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior research methods. 2019. 51 (1): 195–203.Proverbio A.M., Vecchi L., Zani A. From orthography to phonetics: ERP measures of grapheme-to-phoneme conversion mechanisms in reading. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 2004. 16 (2): 301–317.Proverbio A.M., Zani A., Adorni R. The left fusiform area is affected by written frequency of words. Neuropsychologia. 2008. 46 (9): 2292–2299.Qi Z., Beach S.D., Finn A.S., Minas J., Goetz C., Chan B., Gabrieli J.D.E. Native-language N400 and P600 predict dissociable language-learning abilities in adults. Neuropsychologia. 2017. 98: 177–191.Querido L., Fernandes S., Verhaeghe A. Orthographic knowledge, and reading and spelling: a longitudinal study in an intermediate depth orthography. The Spanish Journal of Psychology. 2021. 24: e3.Quiñonez-Beltrán J.F., Gómez-Velázquez F.R., González-Garrido A.A., Ruiz-Stovel V.D., Espinoza-Valdez A. Interplay of phonological and orthographic electrophysiological processing during reading in Spanish. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2025. 211: 112550.Sánchez-Vincitore L.V., Avery T., Froud K. Word-related N170 responses to implicit and ex-plicit reading tasks in neoliterate adults. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2018. 42 (3): 321–332.Sassenhagen J., Schlesewsky M., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I. The P600-as-P3 hypothesis revisited: Single-trial analyses reveal that the late EEG positivity following linguistically deviant material is reaction time aligned. Brain and Language. 2014. 137: 29–39.Sauseng P., Bergmann J., Wimmer H. When does the brain register deviances from standard word spellings? An ERP study. Cogn. Brain Res. 2004. 20: 529–532.Schacht A., Sommer W., Shmuilovich O., Martíenz P. C., Martín-Loeches M. Differential task effects on N400 and P600 elicited by semantic and syntactic violations. PloS one. 2014. 9 (3): e91226.Stanovich K.E., West R.F. Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading research quarterly. 1989. 402–433.Tabullo Á.J., Shalom D., Sevilla Y., Gattei C.A., París L., Wainselboim A. Reading Comprehension and Predictability Effects on Sentence Processing: An Event-Related Potential Study. Mind, Brain, and Education. 2019. 14 (1): 32–50.Troyer M., Kutas M., Batterink L., McRae K. Nuances of knowing: Brain potentials reveal implicit effects of domain knowledge on word processing in the absence of sentence-level knowledge. Psychophysiology. 2024. 61 (1): e14422.Tzeng Y.L., Hsu C.H., Huang Y.C., Lee C.Y. The acquisition of orthographic knowledge: Evidence from the lexicality effects on N400. Frontiers in psychology. 2017. 8: 433.Wagner R.K., Barker T.A. The development of orthographic processing ability. The Varieties of Orthographic Knowledge: I: Theoretical and Developmental Issues. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. 1994. 243–276.Wimmer L., Ferguson H.J. Testing the validity of a self-report scale, author recognition test, and book counting as measures of lifetime exposure to print fiction. Behavior Research Methods. 2023. 55 (1): 103–134.Yang C.L., Perfetti C.A., Tan L.-H., Jiang Y. ERP indicators of L2 proficiency in word-to-text integration processes. Neuropsychologia. 2018. 117: 287–301.Yap M.J., Balota D.A., Sibley D.E., Ratcliff R. Individual differences in visual word recognition: insights from the English Lexicon Project. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2012. 38 (1): 53.Zoccolotti P., De Luca M., Di Filippo G., Judica A., Martelli M. Reading development in an orthographically regular language: effects of length, frequency, lexicality and global processing ability. Reading and Writing. 2009. 22 (9): 1053–1079.