Starting at the age of 11 months, previous research [33], [34], [35] has shown a negativity between 200 400 ms for familiar compared to unfamiliar words.
Furthermore, during the time period where we might expect a macaque P3a component (200 350 ms), we see, if anything, a stronger negativity for the violation sequences (Fig. 3).
This in turn resulted from a significant negativity for List 1 items relative to List 2 items in the Categorisation groups (F1, 29 = 7.34, p = .01), though not for the Recognition groups.
This resulted from an interaction between List and Instructions in the un-exposed Control groups only (F1, 28 = 5.04, p = .03): there was a relative negativity for List 1 relative to List 2 in the Control Categorisation group (F1, 14 = 4.84, p>.05), but not in the Control Recognition group.
In contrast to Penke et al. (1997) study, we found a posterior negativity for both incorrect irregular and regular participles, even though it was not quite significant for regular verbs.
Follow-up analyses at each location separately confirmed that the interaction reflected a larger negativity for low frequency (−.089 μV) compared to high frequency (.299 μV) compounds at frontal locations [ F 1, 17) = 4.960, p = .040].040]
It corresponded to a larger negativity for the second presentation in comparison to the first one that was specific to frequent words (figure 4B) and observed only in left hemisphere (p <.001).
For the Covert task, results were expected to confirm previous findings that visual spatial attention results in modulations of sensory-specific P1 and N1 components, as well as in a subsequent negativity for visual stimuli at cued versus uncued locations beyond 200 ms post-stimulus.
In addition, a sustained negativity for cued versus uncued visual stimuli was consistently present for all three tasks beyond 200 ms post-stimulus, although this effect appeared to be smaller in the Saccade task relative to the other two task conditions.
Some others have found such effects at longer latencies [ 56, 57] or on the N170 but in an opposite manner to ours, i.e. an enhanced negativity for the local processing [ 58, 59].
Visual inspection suggested an increased negativity for yes responses compared to no responses in particular within the control group (see Figure 1 right panel, and Figure 3).
