489975

research-article2013
EEGXXX10.1177/1550059413489975González-Garrido et alClinical EEG and Neuroscience

Article
Clinical EEG and Neuroscience

Orthographic Recognition in Late Adolescents:

2014, Vol. 45(2) 113­–121
© EEG and Clinical Neuroscience
Society (ECNS) 2013
An Assessment Through Event-Related Brain Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Potentials DOI: 10.1177/1550059413489975

eeg.sagepub.com

Andrés Antonio González-Garrido1,2, Fabiola Reveca Gómez-Velázquez1, and

Elizabeth Rodríguez-Santillán1

Abstract
Reading speed and efficiency are achieved through the automatic recognition of written words. Difficulties in learning and
recognizing the orthography of words can arise despite reiterative exposure to texts. This study aimed to investigate, in native
Spanish-speaking late adolescents, how different levels of orthographic knowledge might result in behavioral and event-related
brain potential differences during the recognition of orthographic errors. Forty-five healthy high school students were selected
and divided into 3 equal groups (High, Medium, Low) according to their performance on a 5-test battery of orthographic
knowledge. All participants performed an orthographic recognition task consisting of the sequential presentation of a picture
(object, fruit, or animal) followed by a correctly, or incorrectly, written word (orthographic mismatch) that named the picture
just shown. Electroencephalogram (EEG) recording took place simultaneously. Behavioral results showed that the Low group
had a significantly lower number of correct responses and increased reaction times while processing orthographical errors.
Tests showed significant positive correlations between higher performance on the experimental task and faster and more
accurate reading. The P150 and P450 components showed higher voltages in the High group when processing orthographic
errors, whereas N170 seemed less lateralized to the left hemisphere in the lower orthographic performers. Also, trials with
orthographic errors elicited a frontal P450 component that was only evident in the High group. The present results show
that higher levels of orthographic knowledge correlate with high reading performance, likely because of faster and more
accurate perceptual processing, better visual orthographic representations, and top-down supervision, as the event-related
brain potential findings seem to suggest.

Keywords
orthographic processing, word recognition, reading, event-related potential (ERP)
Received December 24, 2012; revised April 7, 2013; accepted April 21, 2013.

Introduction
Oral reading fluency is conceived as the oral translation of text
with speed and accuracy. It may serve as an indicator of overall
reading competence1 and is essential for progressive increases
in academic achievement. Efficient, low-level word recogni-
tion facilitates the higher level, integrative comprehension pro-
cessing of text that allows the individual to abstract the main
idea and relate it to previous knowledge. In fact, the reading
experience triggers adjustment processes that progressively
allow visual word recognition to become a more automatic and
effortless operation.
Orthographic difficulties have been related to developmen-
tal dyslexia,2-4 though previous research has focused more on
reading than on writing processes of dyslexic students. Several
authors assume that there is a failure to abstract orthographic
regularities even after repeated exposure to text, as well as dif-
ficulty in acquiring automatic word recognition, both of which
affect reading speed.5 The velocity with which text is repro-
duced into spoken language is the most salient characteristic of
skillful reading.6 Also, in languages characterized by transpar-
ent orthographies, reading accuracy is usually high whereas
reading speed is extremely low.7,8
Spanish is a transparent language with a regular orthogra-
phy because of its high grapheme–phoneme correspondence.
In contrast to other languages, phonological deficits in Spanish
1
Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico
2
O.P.D. Hospital Civil de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico
Corresponding Author:
Andrés A. González-Garrido, Instituto de Neurociencias, Universidad de
Guadalajara, Francisco de Quevedo 180, Arcos Vallarta 44130, Guadalajara,
Jalisco, México.
Email: gonzalezgarrido@gmail.com
Full-color figures are available online at http://eeg.sagepub.com
114 Clinical EEG and Neuroscience 45(2)
seem to represent a secondary problem, whereas reading speed
has been reported as the core deficit in dyslexics.9-11
Studies involving the Spanish language seem to correspond
to the notion established by several models of word reading that
posit a direct access route from orthography to meaning, bypass-
ing phonology.12-14 However, some authors have postulated that
in languages with consistent alphabetic orthographies, children
will rely heavily on grapheme–phoneme recoding while read-
ing.15 Probably because of the fact that in languages with these
characteristics the consistency of the orthography is much lower
in the direction from phoneme-to-grapheme than from grapheme-
to-phoneme (eg, German, Spanish, etc), it has been reported that
in dyslexic children the number of phonologically incorrect
spellings is low, but they often produce spellings that are ortho-
graphically incorrect, indicating that they have not been able to
develop an extensive, easily accessible orthographic lexicon.3,16
Also, the buildup of orthographic representations takes a con-
siderable amount of time,16 with the result that reading speed is
very slow, with frequent errors in orthographic spelling; a con-
dition that may persist into adulthood.
In this context, a recent longitudinal study using neuroimag-
ing evaluated the brain activation patterns associated with per-
formance of a rhyming judgment task in young people aged 9
to 15 years, who were tested again approximately 3 to 5 years
later. That experiment found significant correlates between
brain activation and reading skills, leading its authors to sug-
gest a direct, predictable relation between orthographic analy-
sis and subsequent reading proficiency.17 In spite of growing
evidence of the relation between reading fluency and ortho-
graphic abilities in children, few studies have explored this
relation in late adolescence and adulthood. Recently, Shany
and Breznitz18 reported a lower activation of the visual associa-
tion cortex—as indicated by the amplitude of the N170 compo-
nent of the event-related brain potentials (ERPs)—in
accuracy-disabled young adults compared with skilled control
readers. In addition, Wimmer et al19 used a functional magnetic
resonance imaging experiment to examine phonological and
orthographic decision tasks in adult dyslexics and controls,
finding that the former showed lower brain activation in areas
involved in visual–orthographic whole word recognition, but
increased activity in regions primarily associated with silent
articulatory processes, suggesting a grapheme–phoneme read-
ing strategy, instead of whole word processing.
In another study, Mariol et al20 analyzed ERPs in adults while
performing a go/no-go lexical decision task. They presented
single words (go trials) and pseudowords (no-go trials), whose
orthographic conformation included the addition of double con-
sonants either in legal or illegal positions. Those authors found
electrophysiological differences between words and pseudo-
words later than 230 ms post-stimulus. Moreover, the lexical
decision elicited significant changes that were visible in the fron-
toparietal P3 component—between 300 and 400 ms—and were
interpreted as part of the orthographic-based lexical decision.
It seems plausible, then, to expect that the study of electro-
physiological responses could be useful to further evaluate ortho-
graphic recognition skills and their relation to reading fluency. In
this context, we designed the present study to examine more
closely differences in the ERPs that underlie weak and strong
orthographic abilities in late adolescents during detection of
orthographic errors; that is, misspelled words produced by substi-
tuting single letters while maintaining identical phonology.
Methods
Participants
Forty-five healthy, right-handed participants were selected from
a pool of 430 high school students attending any of 6 different
high schools, according to their performance on 5 orthographic-
knowledge tasks, and then divided into 3 groups as follows:
High (15 participants; mean age = 17.69 years, SD = 0.75 years;
total orthographic errors in the 15th percentile or lower);
Medium (15 participants; mean age = 17.53 years, SD = 0.52
years; number of errors between the 30th and 70th percentiles);
and Low (15 participants; mean age = 17.55 years, SD = 0.69
years; number of errors in the 85th percentile or above).
The 3 groups were matched according to age, handedness,
and educational level (12th grade), though gender composition
varied among groups (High, 8 males; Medium, 7 males; Low,
12 males). All subjects had a Wechsler Intelligence Scale III
(2003)21 global IQ of 90 or higher and were attending the final
grade at a normal high school. None had any personal or family
history of psychiatric, neurological, or degenerative illness, nor
had they been diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity
disorder or any emotional disturbance or behavioral disorder,
according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (fourth edition) criteria. All participants underwent
neurological examination and baseline EEG with normal
results. Ethical approval for all procedures was obtained prior
to the study. Informed written consent was also obtained from
all participants.
The tasks used to classify the participants were selected
with the objective of depicting orthographic knowledge through
the most representative writing exposure situations. All tasks
were administered in one single session that lasted approxi-
mately one hour. The specific tasks applied were as follows: (1)
Word completion: Participants were told that they would see a
list of 36 words with letters missing, and that their task was to
fill in the blanks to make complete words by choosing between
2 or 3 possible homophone letters (eg, no_ivo, c-s-z).
Participants were given an unlimited amount of time to com-
plete the task. (2) Letter dictation: Participants were instructed
to write down a letter—narrative text—as it was spoken. The
letter had 196 words adapted from a text included in a primary
school textbook. (3) Word dictation: Participants were
instructed to write down a list of 40 words as they were spoken.
Each word contained 2 or 3 syllables and all were susceptible
to pseudohomophone errors. (4) Text correction: In an exposi-
tory text of 276 words, 22 words were replaced by pseudo-
homophone errors (eg, bacterias × vacterias). Participants were
instructed to detect the orthographic errors in the text. (5) Free
writing: Participants were asked to write an argumentative text
González-Garrido et al 115

Table 1.  Reading Performance.

High (n = 15); Medium (n=15); Low (n = 15);

Reading Tasks Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Student’s t P(t) Value
Reading speed (words per minute) 166.4 (27.5) 144.4 (18.3) 125.2 (15.4) High vs Medium 2.582 .015
  High vs Low 5.062 .000
  Medium vs Low 3.101 .004
Misread words 1.9 (2.9) 4.1 (3.3) 5.5 (4.3) High vs Medium −1.931 .064
  High vs Low −2.735 .011
  Medium vs Low −1.054 .301
Text comprehension 6.3 (1.8) 5.3 (2.3) 4.9 (2.8) High vs Medium 1.387 .176
  High vs Low 1.707 .099
  Medium vs Low 0.427 .673

on the topic of abortion. They had unlimited time to complete

the assignment.
None of the 5 tasks was previously standardized. Internal
consistency was evaluated using the Spearman–Brown split-
half reliability coefficient in tasks 1 (word completion, r =
0.721), task 3 (word dictation, r = 0.870), and task 4 (text cor-
rection, r = 0.812). The Spearman correlations between perfor-
mance on each task, and the total number of orthographic
errors—with task performance effects partialed out—showed
the highest correlation for task 3 (r = 0.805). In addition, task 1
(r = 0.705), task 2 (r = 0.700), and task 4 (r = 0.732) showed
high correlations, whereas task 5 showed the lowest correlation
(r = 0.367).
To evaluate the relationship between orthographic abilities
Figure 1.  Flowchart of the experimental task used to obtain the
and reading performance, all subjects were asked to read aloud event-related brain potentials.
an expository text of 504 words. During this exercise, the fol-
lowing parameters were measured: (1) reading speed, (2) num-
Stimuli
ber of misread words, and (3) text comprehension. Table 1
shows the results of the reading tests. A total of 144 picture–word pairs were used as stimuli with
72 being used in each experimental condition. The words
were common, 2-syllable (57.9%) or 3-syllable (42.1%) nouns.
Experimental Task The accompanying images were black and white pictures
All participants performed an orthographic verification task in (250 × 162 pixels) at 640 × 480 dpi resolution, and a size of
which each trial consisted of the sequential presentation of an 5.8 × 8.3 cm. The pictures used as stimuli were selected from
easily named picture from one of three counterbalanced cate- Snodgrass and Vanderwart,22 based on their standardization for
gories (object, meal, or animal). The images appeared for Spanish.23
1000 ms on a 17-inch CRT monitor (screen resolution = 800 × With respect to the words selected, 72 were correctly written
600; refresh rate = 60 Hz), followed by a 2- or 3-syllable word (W), whereas the other 72 (OM) were replaced by pseudohomo-
that matched the picture but was written correctly (W), or phones (ie, one letter was replaced to create a plausible ortho-
incorrectly (OM for orthographic mismatch). The words also graphic error, while maintaining the same phonology of the real
appeared for 1000 ms with an interstimulus interval of word; example in Spanish: corazón × corasón; similar to circus
1000 ms, and were centrally projected in white lowercase Arial × sircus in English; see Figure 1). There were no significant dif-
60 letters against a black background, subtending a visual angle ferences in the number of syllables between conditions.
of 0.75°. Subjects were instructed to determine whether the
word was correctly written, as quickly as possible, by pressing
Procedure
a keyboard key with their left or right index fingers, respec-
tively. The key order was counterbalanced across conditions Subjects were tested in a sound-attenuated room. The list con-
(correctly or incorrectly written words) and subjects. taining all the picture–word pairs from the 2 experimental
116 Clinical EEG and Neuroscience 45(2)
conditions (W, OM) was semi-randomized and divided into 3
blocks to be administered with a brief rest interval. The presen-
tation order of the blocks was appropriately counterbalanced
among subjects, who were instructed to minimize eye and body
movements during the experiment. All participants were ade-
quately trained before performing the task.
Stimulus delivery, response collection, and data acquisition
onset were all synchronized and controlled by the MIND-
TRACER software (Neuronic S.A., Havana, Cuba, 2003).
Electrophysiological Methods
Recording.  EEG activity was recorded from the Fp1, Fp2, F3,
F4, F7, F8, C3, C4, P3, P4, O1, O2, T3, T4, T5, T6, Fz, Cz, and
Pz scalp sites. All electro-oculograms (EOGs) were recorded
from the outer canthus and infraocular orbital ridge of the right
eye. Electrophysiological recordings were made using 10-mm
diameter gold disc electrodes (Grass Type E5GH, Natus Neu-
rology Inc, Middleton, WI) and Grass electrode cream. All
recording sites were referred to linked mastoids. Inter-electrode
impedances were less than 5 kohm at 30 Hz. EEG and EOG
signals were amplified at a bandpass of 0.5 to 30 Hz (3-dB
cutoff points of 6 dB/octave roll-off curves) with a sampling
period of 5 ms on the MEDICID-03E system. Data were
collected as 1.100-second epochs for all recording channels
beginning 100 ms prior to stimulus onset (word or pseudo-
homophone). Single trial data were stored off-line for averag-
ing and analysis.
Data Analysis
Behavioral Measures. Correct and incorrect responses were
automatically marked on the EEG by the software; reaction
times were recorded simultaneously.
Signal Averaging.  Epochs of data on all channels were excluded
from averages when the voltage in a given recording epoch
exceeded 100 µV on any EEG or EOG channel. Epochs with
artifacts were also rejected by visual inspection. Twenty
artifact-free correct trials—randomly selected across each EEG
record—were considered to obtain the individual ERP in each
condition. Every individual ERP reached a standard deviation
rate less than 1.1 and a residual noise level (RNL) less than 2.
Statistical Analysis.  Two-factor analyses of variance (ANOVAs;
Group × Condition) were performed to examine correct
responses and reaction times during experimental task perfor-
mance. Pearson correlations were used to explore the relation-
ships between behavioral responses during the experimental
task and reading performance.
According to the visual examination of the resulting group-
averaged ERP waveforms, the main voltage variations were
estimated to examine the electrophysiological data in several
time windows. Split-plot ANOVAs (Group × Condition ×
Recording Site) were conducted on average voltages across
each time window as the dependent variable. Greenhouse–
Geisser corrections to the df were applied as needed, with the
corrected probabilities reported. Additionally, post hoc Tukey’s
honesty significant difference tests were done to explore any
trends in the observed changes.
Results
Behavioral Results
On analyzing the number of correct responses, significant dif-
ferences among groups (F2,42 = 22.6, P < .001, η2p = 0.518) and
between conditions (F1,42 = 67.3, P < .001, η2p = 0.616), as well
as a significant interaction between the 2 factors (F2,42 = 14.193,
P < .01, η2p = 0.403) were found. Post hoc analyses demon-
strated that both Medium (P < .05) and Low (P < .01) had
lower numbers of correct responses than High, but only when
processing orthographic mismatches. In general, the three
groups achieved more correct responses when processing cor-
rect words than when orthographically incorrect words were
shown (P < .01). Table 2 shows the behavioral performance of
each group.
Pearson correlations showed that the number of correct
responses while processing the orthographic errors correlated
positively with reading speed—that is, the number of words
read per minute (r = 0.469, P < .01)—whereas its correlation
with the number of misread words was significantly negative
(r = −0.376, P < .05). Thus, reading performance by subjects
with poorer orthographic abilities was both less accurate and
slower.
In addition, the 2-factor, split-plot ANOVAs showed signifi-
cant differences in reaction times between conditions (F1,42 =
75.4, P < .001, η2p = 0.642); indicative of prolonged times
when processing orthographic errors in all groups.
Electrophysiological Results
To analyze the electrophysiological results, 3-factor, split-plot
ANOVAs (Group × Condition × Recording Site) were con-
ducted on average voltages across each time window as the
dependent variable.
Regarding the visual examination of the group-averaged
ERP waveforms, 5 main ERP components were observed—
P150, N170, P200, P450, and P600. Thus, 4 time windows
were selected to evaluate the electrophysiological data, from
50 ms before to 50 ms after each maximum voltage main peak.
The factor Recording Site was analyzed in locations where the
main visually detected changes took place.
Because of its predominant topographical distribution, the
analysis of P150 was performed at locations P3, P4, O1, O2,
T5, and T6, and showed significant interactions between
Condition and Recording Site (F2,42 = 2.64, P < .05), where
post hoc tests showed that higher voltage amplitudes in cor-
rectly written words were reached at T5 and O1 (P < .05). The
analysis of P150 latency revealed no significant change across
conditions. Figure 2 shows the ERPs that correspond to the
González-Garrido et al 117

Table 2.  Behavioral Performance on the Experimental Task.

Orthographically
Group Congruent; Mean (SD) Incongruent; Mean (SD) Total; Mean (SD)
High (n = 15)  
  Correct responses 67.7 (2.6) 64.3 (3.4) 65.3 (5.9)
  Reaction timea 686.7 (150.8) 745.4 (145.8) 716.1 (148.8)
Medium (n = 15)  
  Correct responses 66.7 (3.6) 56.0 (9.2) 61.3 (8.8)
  Reaction timea 749.9 (143.6) 860.3 (169.6) 805.1 (164.3)
Low (n = 15)  
  Correct responses 65.9 (3.3) 43.1 (12.6) 55.2 (14.5)
  Reaction timea 716.4 (165.9) 821.9 (166.5) 769.2 (171.9)
Total  
  Correct responses 66.8 (3.2) 54.4 (12.6)  
  Reaction timea 717.7 (152.5) 809.2 (164.5)  
a
Reaction times are in milliseconds.

analysis of P450—a positive component primarily distributed

Figure 2.  Grand-averaged, event-related brain potentials while
performing an orthographic decision task at temporal–parietal and
occipital recording sites.
locations at which the analyses of P150 and N170 were
performed.
The N170 component seemed to reach higher amplitudes
over the posterior temporal areas, especially in the left hemi-
sphere. The analysis of N170 showed a significant effect only
for the factor Recording Site (F1,42 = 11.25, P < .001). However,
the analysis of its latency showed a significant interaction
between Condition and Recording Site (F2,84 = 3.43, P < .05),
which suggests that N170 latency was more prolonged at T6
than at T5 during orthographic errors (P < .01). Poorly defined
lateralization was evident for N170 in the Low group, which
exhibited a tendency to reach lower voltage magnitudes while
detecting correctly written words (see Figure 2).
The analyses of the subsequent P200, P450, and P600 com-
ponents were conducted at locations F3, F4, C3, C4, Fz, Cz,
and Pz, where the principal changes were discernible. The
component P200 showed no statistically significant effects,
probably because of individual variability. However, the
over the frontal–central areas—did show significant differ-
ences between conditions (F1,42 = 11.28, P < .01), indicating
that significantly higher voltages were reached while process-
ing orthographic errors. Also, a significant interaction between
Group and Condition (F2,42 = 7.50, P < .01) was found. Post
hoc analyses demonstrated that High reached lower voltages
than Medium (P < .05) and Low (P < .05) under the correct
words condition. When processing orthographic mismatches,
only High showed significant differences between conditions
(P < .01), by reaching higher voltages in the case of ortho-
graphic errors. The analysis of P450 latency showed no signifi-
cant variations across conditions.
Finally, the analysis of P600 showed a significant effect for
the factor Condition (F1,42 = 6.85, P < .001), with a significant
interaction between Group and Recording Site (F2,84 = 1.99,
P < .05). With regards to the post hoc analyses, they denote that
Low and Medium had higher voltages over parietal areas com-
pared to High (P < .05 and P < .05, respectively). Figure 3
shows the midline ERPs at which the P200, P450, and P600
components are observed.
Discussion
In languages that use the Latin/Roman alphabet, the ability to
read words “by sight” (ie, automatically) seems to rest on the
ability to map letters and letter combinations to sounds.24
Indeed, the development of insights into how letters and sounds
correspond allows the learner to memorize differences between
words that may not be visually very distinctive (eg, male, malt,
mole). Given that reading and spelling build on, and rely on,
the same mental representation of a word, the instructions and
information needed to learn how to spell words could be used
in both spelling and sight reading. Furthermore, it has been
postulated that the spelling of a word makes the mental repre-
sentation robust in memory and readily accessible for fluent
reading.25
118 Clinical EEG and Neuroscience 45(2)
Figure 3.  Midline grand-averaged, event-related brain potentials during performance of an orthographic decision task.
As spelling proficiency develops, knowledge of both the
consistencies and inconsistencies of the language is gained. In
this context, spelling has been related to implicit memory and
cognition, since the use of “rules” during spelling may involve
“implicit knowledge of sound–spelling correspondences,
orthographic regularities, frequencies, and statistical probabili-
ties used during automatic retrieval, as well as explicit phono-
logical knowledge and knowledge of orthographic conventions”
(see Steffler26 for an extensive review). In other words, limited
orthographic knowledge might be an expression of inadequate
language and reading development, which might limit, in cer-
tain aspects, the subsequent individual adaptation to higher
educational demands. Based on this reasoning, we evaluated
orthographic skills and their relation to reading fluency with
the aim of more closely examining differences in the ERPS that
underlie weak and strong orthographic abilities in late adoles-
cents during detection of orthographic errors.
With regards to the nature of the task, and based on the spe-
cific group selected, behavioral results confirmed the expected
differences in orthographical error detection. Also, the pro-
longed reaction times suggest that the increased difficulty
caused by the appearance of a pseudohomophone correlated
with greater processing effort; a finding that agrees with previ-
ous literature on this topic.27,28
Despite the fact that all participants were regular students
and none had references of any previous reading disorders,
there were significant differences among groups in reading per-
formance, as the subjects in Low showed significantly slower
reading speeds than those classified as High and Medium
orthographic performers. Indeed, the Low group showed an
average reading speed within the level recently reported for
Mexican students attending the sixth grade.29 Low reading
speed is considered a core deficit in Spanish dyslexics; thus,
our results suggest that poor orthographic knowledge could be
related to reading problems.
In addition, the number of participants by gender was not
equivalent between groups, because of the results from the ear-
lier screening conducted to select the experimental samples.
The higher number of males in the Low group seems to be
consistent with previous reports of higher prevalence of read-
ing disabilities in males.30,31
ERP Findings
The first main component—P150—showed a temporal–
parietal–occipital distribution that could be related to early
visual perceptual linguistic categorization that likely depends
on the posterior fusiform gyrus.32
Early changes in ERP, as reflected by P150, could represent
a word superiority effect, as proposed by Coch and Mitra.33
However, also as per these authors, it could be associated with
orthographic fluency, probably depending on the availability of
processing resources. In this context, it is reasonable to assume
that the P150 component might index visual categorization
processes, sensitive to orthographic regularity, as part of a
visual route to an orthographic input lexicon.34 The effect found
in the P150 component—lateralization to the left—fits with
these previous theoretical assumptions.
González-Garrido et al 119
However, nonsignificant effects were found among groups.
This could be attributed to an inter-individual variability effect
in view of the fact that, as has been reported previously,35
the voltage effects of P150 are relatively small. Alternatively, the
lack of significant effects among groups could be because of the
relative preservation of early perceptual processes in each one.
In general, the N170 component has been interpreted as a
hallmark of visual orthographic specialization36,37 that may
reflect increased visual processing expertise,38 most likely in
prelexical orthographic processing.39 The present results seem
to correspond well to previously reported findings of the N170
component, where source localization and imaging studies have
shown that this early stage of perception processing occurs in
the fusiform gyrus, and is lateralized depending on the nature of
the stimuli (left side for words; right side for pictures).40,41
Accordingly, the N170 component was lateralized and also
faster at the left side when orthographic errors were analyzed,
probably reflecting sublexical perceptual processing. However,
nonsignificant changes among groups were found, even though
Low seemed to be less lateralized and to have lower voltage
magnitudes while detecting correctly written words.
When evaluating the functional significance of later ERP com-
ponents, an effect of the orthographic mismatch was obtained
later, at around 450 ms, with orthographic errors eliciting larger
amplitudes in comparison to correctly written words at frontopa-
rietal sites. Regarding latency and topography, P450 resembles
the extensively documented P3 component, which appears when
a stimulus is perceived and attentional resource allocation42 and
memory operations43 are involved (see Polich et al44 for a review).
This seems to be the case in the present study, with greater empha-
sis on the orthographic incongruent condition. When a task
imposes greater demands on attention resources, the result is
larger P3 amplitudes, but in the present experiment, only High
was sensitive to these demands. This result could reflect the
higher capacity of this group to differentiate an orthographic
anomaly as a product of the comparison between the incoming
visual stimuli and the expected mental template.
Another analog to the present P450 waveform was found in
an experiment conducted to study the effect of word frequency
on the processing of emotional words.45 This component was
interpreted as reflecting adjustments in attentional mechanisms
to benefit lexical information processing. The P450 waveform
could reflect a late stage of processing,40 probably associated
with recognition processes. In the present experiment, P450 was
significantly greater in High while recognizing orthographic
mismatches; a finding that would be compatible with the greater
orthographic knowledge demonstrated by this group.
Finally, as per the findings from Mariol et al20 described
above, one could hypothesize that the P3 analogue would be
greater when there are stronger mental representations of the
expected word. In short, lower orthographic recognition in
Medium and Low might be derived from a lower ability to con-
struct adequate mental representations of the words during the
reading experience.
Regarding the temporal dynamics and topographic distribu-
tion, one might relate the late positivity observed in Medium and
Low to the P600 effect typically observed in previous studies
with syntactic or semantic manipulations (see Gouvea et al,46
Kolk and Chwilla,47 and Kuperberg48 for reviews). However, in
the present experiment, semantic congruence remained intact
despite the orthographical errors, and there were no evident syn-
tactic inconsistencies. The recent finding of a P600-like compo-
nent elicited by violations of derivational morphology in
Spanish,49 provides evidence to suggest that the detection of
orthographic errors in subjects with lower orthographic abilities
might depend, at least in part, on more unspecific analyses, such
as those morpheme-based processes reflected by P600.
Alternatively, one could conjecture that the P600 waveform
might be a delayed analogue of the P450 described for High.
However, the lack of significant differences in response times
among groups gives little credence to this assumption.
Conclusions
Taken together, earlier findings and the results of this study sug-
gest that orthographic accuracy in a transparent language, such as
Spanish, seems to depend on a complex combination of factors
that run from the earliest steps of low-level perceptual processes—
including sublexical processing—to higher level neural substrates,
where priming and other comparing–recovering mechanisms may
play an important dynamic role, along with the integrity of the
neural circuits that are essential for reading. The present study
confirms that spelling skills and reading speed are closely related
in Spanish. In addition, it offers insight on late adolescents with
high and low orthographic knowledge. However, the small sample
size might limit the scope of the present study, and more extensive
research on the neural structures involved in reading and their
functional interplay, is needed to clarify neural availability and
connectivity, among other intriguing topics related to reading pro-
cesses and associated developmental disorders.
Authors’ Note
The first two authors (AAG-G and FRG-V) contributed equally to this
work.
Acknowledgments
We thank Paul Kersey and Vanessa Ruiz-Stovel for their revision of
the English version.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
This work was partially supported by CONACYT Grant 80906 and
the Neuroscience Institute (University of Guadalajara, Mexico).
References
1. Fuchs LS, Fuchs D, Hosp MK, Jenkins JR. Oral reading fluency
as an indicator of reading competence: a theoretical, empirical,
and historical analysis. Sci Stud Read. 2001;5:241-258.
120 Clinical EEG and Neuroscience 45(2)
2. Katzir T, Kim Y, Wolf M, O’Brien B, Kennedy B, Lovett M, et al.
Reading fluency: the whole is more than the parts. Ann Dyslexia
2006; 56: 51-82.
3. Landerl K. Word recognition deficits in German: more evidence
from a representative sample. Dyslexia. 2001;7:183-196.
4. Lovett MW, Ransby MJ, Barrow RW. Treatment, subtype, and
word type effect in dyslexic children’s response to remediation.
Brain Lang. 1988;34:328-349.
5. Bowers PG, Wolf M. Theoretical links among naming speed, pre-
cise timing mechanisms and orthographic skill in dyslexia. Read
Writ. 1993;5:69-85.
6. Adams MJ. Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About
Print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1990.
7. de Jong PF, van der Leij A. Specific contributions of phonological
abilities to early reading acquisition: results from a Dutch latent
variable longitudinal study. J Educ Psychol. 1999;91:450-476.
8. Landerl K, Wimmer H, Frith U. The impact of orthographic con-
sistency on dyslexia: a German-English comparison. Cognition.
1997;63:315-334.
9. Gómez-Velázquez FR, González-Garrido AA, Zarabozo D,
Amano M. La velocidad de denominación de letras es el mejor
predictor temprano del desarrollo lector en español. Rev Mex Inv
Educ. 2010;15:823-847.
10. González-Garrido AA, Gómez-Velázquez FR, Zarabozo D, Ruiz-
Villeda BA, de la Serna Tuya JM. Rapid automatized naming and
lexical decision in children from an electrophysiological perspec-
tive. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2011;42:14-23.
11. López-Escribano C. Contributions of neuroscience to the diag-
nosis and educational treatment of developmental dyslexia. Rev
Neurol. 2007;44:173-180.
12. Coltheart M, Rastle K, Perry C, Langdon R, Ziegler J. DRC: a
dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading
aloud. Psychol Rev. 2001;108:204-256.
13. Rastle K, Havelka J, Wydell TN, Coltheart M, Besner D. The
cross-script length effect: further evidence challenging PDP
models of reading aloud. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn.
2009;35:238-246.
14. Seidenberg MS. The time course of phonological code activation
in two writing systems. Cognition. 1985;19:1-30.
15. Goswami U. Phonology, reading development, and dyslexia:
across-linguistic perspective. Ann Dyslexia. 2002;52:141-163.
16. Wimmer H. Characteristics of developmental dyslexia in a regu-
lar writing system. Appl Psycholinguist. 1993;14:1-33.
17. McNorgan C, Alvarez A, Bhullar A, Gayda J, Booth JR.
Prediction of reading skill several years later depends on age and
brain region: implications for developmental models of reading.
J Neurosci. 2011;31:9641-9648.
18. Shany M, Breznitz Z. Rate- and accuracy-disabled subtype pro-
files among adults with dyslexia in the Hebrew orthography. Dev
Neuropsychol. 2011;36:889-913.
19. Wimmer H, Schurz M, Sturm D, et al. A dual-route perspective
on poor reading in a regular orthography: an fMRI study. Cortex.
2010;46:1284-1298.
20. Mariol M, Jacques C, Schelstraete MA, Rossion B. The speed
of orthographic processing during lexical decision: electrophysi-
ological evidence for independent coding of letter identity and
letter position in visual word recognition. J Cogn Neurosci.
2008;20:1283-1299.
21. Wechsler D. Escala Wechsler de Inteligencia para Adultos-III.
México, DF, México: Manual Moderno; 2003.
22. Snodgrass JG, Vanderwart M. A standardized set of 260 pictures:
norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and
visual complexity. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn. 1980;6:174-215.
23. Sanfeliu MC, Fernandez AM. A set of 254 Snodgrass-Vanderwart
pictures standardized for Spanish: norms for name agreement,
image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Behav Res
Methods Instrum Comput. 1996;28:537-555.
24. Ehri L, Snowling MJ. Developmental variation in word recogni-
tion. In: Stone CA, Silliman ER, Ehren BJ, Apel K, eds. Handbook
of Language and Literacy: Development and Disorders. 433-460.
New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2004:433-460.
25. Hayward DV, Phillips LM. The relationship between spelling and
reading ability. In: Jamieson DG, ed. Encyclopedia of Language
and Literacy Development. London, Ontario, Canada: University
of Western Ontario; 2012:1-7.
26. Steffler DJ. Implicit cognition and spelling development. Dev
Rev. 2001;21:168-204.
27. Mechelli A, Gorno-Tempini ML, Price CJ. Neuroimaging studies
of word and pseudoword reading: consistencies, inconsistencies,
and limitations. J Cogn Neurosci. 2003;15:260-271.
28. Woollams AM, Silani G, Okada K, Patterson K, Price CJ. Word
or word-like? Dissociating orthographic typicality from lexicality
in the left occipito-temporal cortex. J Cogn Neurosci. 2011;23:992-
1002.
29. Estándares de lectura. http://www.leer.sep.gob.mx/pdf/manual_
fomento.pdf. Accessed April 4, 2013.
30. Badian NA. Reading disability defined as a discrepancy between
listening and reading comprehension: a longitudinal study of
stability, gender differences, and prevalence. J Learn Disabil.
1999;32:138-148.
31. Wheldall K, Limbrick L. Do more boys than girls have reading
problems? J Learn Disabil. 2010;43:418-429.
32. Schendan HE, Ganis G, Kutas M. Neurophysiological evidence
for visual perceptual categorization of words and faces within 150
ms. Psychophysiology. 1998;35:240-251.
33. Coch D, Mitra P. Word and pseudoword superiority effects
reflected in the ERP waveform. Brain Res. 2010;1329:159-174.
34. Proverbio AM, Vecchi L, Zani A. From orthography to phonetics:
ERP measures of grapheme-to-phoneme conversion mechanisms
in reading. J Cogn Neurosci. 2004;16:301-317.
35. Holcomb PJ, Grainger J. On the time course of visual word rec-
ognition: an event-related potential investigation using masked
repetition priming. J Cogn Neurosci. 2006;18:1631-1643.
36. Bentin S, Mouchetant-Rostaing Y, Giard MH, Echallier JF,
Pernier J. ERP manifestations of processing printed words at dif-
ferent psycholinguistic levels: time course and scalp distribution.
J Cogn Neurosci. 1999;11:235-260.
37. Brem S, Lang-Dullenkopf A, Maurer U, Halder P, Bucher K,
Brandeis D. Neurophysiological signs of rapidly emerging visual
expertise for symbol strings. Neuroreport. 2005;16:45-48.
38. Cao X, Li S, Zhao J, Lin S, Weng X. Left-lateralized early neuro-
physiological response for Chinese characters in young primary
school children. Neurosci Lett. 2011;492:165-169.
39. Simon G, Petit L, Bernard C, Rebaï M. N170 ERPs could repre-
sent a logographic processing strategy in visual word recognition.
Behav Brain Funct. 2007;3:21.
40. Maillard L, Barbeau EJ, Baumann C, et al. From perception to
recognition memory: time course and lateralization of neural sub-
strates of word and abstract picture processing. J Cogn Neurosci.
2011;23:782-800.
González-Garrido et al 121
41. Rossion B, Joyce CA, Cottrell GW, Tarr MJ. Early lateralization
and orientation tuning for face, word, and object processing in the
visual cortex. Neuroimage. 2003;20:1609-1624.
42. Martin CD, Thierry G, Démonet JF. ERP characterization of sus-
tained attention effects in visual lexical categorization. PLoS One.
2010;5:e9892.
43. Cheng X, Schafer G, Akyürek EG. Name agreement in picture
naming: an ERP study. Int J Psychophysiol. 2010;76:130-141.
44. Polich J, Alexander JE, Bauer LO, et al. P300 topography of
amplitude/latency correlations. Brain Topogr. 1997;9:275-282.
45. Méndez-Bértolo C, Pozo MA, Hinojosa JA. Word frequency
modulates the processing of emotional words: convergent
behavioral and electrophysiological data. Neurosci Lett.
2011;494:250-254.
46. Gouvea AC, Phillips C, Kazanina N, Poeppel D. The linguistic
processes underlying the P600. Lang Cogn Process. 2010;25:149-
188.
47. Kolk H, Chwilla D. Late positivities in unusual situations. Brain
Lang. 2007;100:257-261.
48. Kuperberg GR. Neural mechanisms of language comprehension:
challenges to syntax. Brain Res. 2007;1146:23-49.
49. Havas V, Rodríguez-Fornells A, Clahsen H. Brain potentials for
derivational morphology: an ERP study of deadjectival nominal-
izations in Spanish. Brain Lang. 2012;120:332-344.