戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1  conditional random fields with a variety of orthographic and contextual features.
2 the early visual cortex (EVC) is followed by orthographic and lexical computations in the ventral occ
3 t be related to weak connections between the orthographic and lexical-semantic levels of processing.
4                 PB has been demonstrated for orthographic and phonological but not for semantically r
5 level and semantic variables, but effects of orthographic and phonological distance were negatively c
6 separately may affect the ability to extract orthographic and phonological information during reading
7  the results suggest that the integration of orthographic and phonological processing is directly rel
8 hat at early stages of word recognition, the orthographic and phonological processing is similar for
9 rietal lobule is involved in mapping between orthographic and phonological representations.
10 was examined to test the hypothesis that the orthographic and phonological skills engaged in visual w
11  the left prefrontal cortex as a function of orthographic and semantic dimensions, suggesting that it
12 rresponded, respectively, to main effects of orthographic and semantic overlap.
13                   Importantly, the degree of orthographic and semantic parafoveal processing was corr
14 ed almost entirely with regions sensitive to orthographic and semantic relatedness, our results sugge
15 aders have a stronger connection between the orthographic and the lexical-semantic levels of processi
16 rporated in the VLSM analysis to control for orthographic and working memory demands of the rhyming t
17 reading by modulating semantic, lexical, and orthographic attributes of letter strings.
18 tered at JA04 (chi2=9.48; empirical P=.0033; orthographic choice), and there was strong evidence for
19 on at this same marker (chi2=11.49; P=.0007; orthographic choice).
20 notypes was 0.27, with a maximum of 0.66 for orthographic choice.
21  in what has been described as "cracking the orthographic code." Although the challenge to develop mo
22 guages complicates the task of "cracking the orthographic code." Frost suggests that orthographic pro
23 istinct subregions harbor slightly different orthographic codes adapted to those 2 functions.
24  of word recognition and component skills of orthographic coding, phonological decoding, and phoneme
25 everal languages, based on a revised role of orthographic coding.
26  seen there during phonological, than during orthographic, decision making, with the activation durin
27 ly for reading, is therefore not specific to orthographic decoding but may reflect a more general imp
28            We examined the effects of morpho-orthographic decomposition on complex word processing us
29                        The process of morpho-orthographic decomposition was primed by the prior prese
30 resent exhibit systematic trade-offs between orthographic depth and morphological complexity.
31 ed in words and nonwords, suggesting similar orthographic encoding in the two groups.
32 are merely one aspect of investigations into orthographic encoding, while open bigrams can accommodat
33 similar endings than to those with identical orthographic endings; jazz-has vs. cat-hat).
34 e due to picture-specific visual features or orthographic features automatically activated by the sti
35 hology should be incorporated besides purely orthographic features in modeling word recognition.
36 ted whether this processing is restricted to orthographic features or also encompasses semantics.
37 tive neuronal tuning to regularity of visual-orthographic features, which predicts a monotonically in
38 o models representing semantic, sensory, and orthographic features.
39 ted with standardized behavioral measures of orthographic fluency and single word reading.
40                         Results suggest that orthographic fluency is reflected in both lower-level, s
41            Reading aloud requires mapping an orthographic form to a phonological one.
42 ral cortex: the midfusiform GRA would encode orthographic information at a sublexical graphemic level
43 ty is thought to determine the grain size of orthographic information extracted whilst encoding lette
44 aque and a transparent orthographies encoded orthographic information presented to the right of fixat
45 be driven by the strength of engagement with orthographic information.
46 model of reading necessitates "cracking" the orthographic input code.
47 of left middle temporal gyrus in response to orthographic input, within a region located at the inter
48                                              Orthographic knowledge gained through spelling affects r
49 e ability to visually recognize words (i.e., orthographic knowledge).
50 dren's reading and spelling errors show that orthographic learning involves complex interactions with
51  in left occipitotemporal cortex contains an orthographic lexicon based on neuronal representations h
52 tation coding for whole real words (i.e., an orthographic lexicon), but experimental support for such
53 cteristics points to its central role as the orthographic lexicon-the long-term memory representation
54 yond letter-position encoding and beyond the orthographic lexicon.
55  a distance of at least 5 cM for deficits in orthographic (LOD = 3.10) and phonological (LOD = 2.42)
56 dence of substrates that selectively support orthographic long-term and working memory processes, wit
57 wn that brain lesions may selectively affect orthographic long-term memory and working memory process
58 long-term and working memory processes, with orthographic long-term memory deficits centred in either
59 uffering from deficits only affecting either orthographic long-term or working memory, as well as six
60 group differences in the N1 range, such that orthographic modulations observed in controls were absen
61 ic Easy-Access Resource for Phonological and Orthographic Neighborhood Densities), a centralized data
62                         First, the effect of orthographic neighborhood density can be extended beyond
63 , a centralized database of phonological and orthographic neighborhood information, both within and b
64 G) and inferior parietal sulcus (IPS), while orthographic neighborhood sensitivity resides solely in
65 ading speed: lexicality, word frequency, and orthographic neighborhood.
66 mpare general properties of phonological and orthographic neighborhoods across languages.
67 ords that differed in terms of the number of orthographic neighbors (many or few) they had in the oth
68 or list of words and obtain phonological and orthographic neighbors, neighborhood densities, mean nei
69 ar to low-frequency known words, with sparse orthographic neighbourhoods and rarely occurring letter
70 similarity analysis revealed that parafoveal orthographic neighbours (e.g., "writer" vs. "waiter") sh
71 me difficulty in processing phonological and orthographic number words, all basic computational proce
72 g research agenda, and that strong claims of orthographic "optimality" are unwarranted.
73 ch writing systems have evolved to represent orthographic, phonological, and semantic information in
74 bles and opposite effects of word length and orthographic/phonological distance for spoken and writte
75 ical priming transpired as interactions with orthographic priming (in P2, N2 and P3 ranges).
76 logical analysis to examine phonological and orthographic priming, respectively.
77               We suggest that the same basic orthographic processes are applied to all languages.
78 rward views of word reading and suggest that orthographic processes are modulated by prefrontal and s
79 nstructing a model of word recognition where orthographic processes operate in isolation.
80         Measures related to phonological and orthographic processing also showed linkage at this locu
81                           I have argued that orthographic processing cannot be understood and modeled
82 reas increased activity relative to peers in orthographic processing circuits (i.e., fusiform gyrus)
83 ne the neural correlates of phonological and orthographic processing in 14 healthy right-handed men (
84  the common cognitive operations involved in orthographic processing in all writing systems, are disc
85 tomatic lexical-semantic feedback modulating orthographic processing in deaf readers.
86 ed to reliably map brain regions involved in orthographic processing in individual subjects.
87                  An open question is whether orthographic processing is limited to visual circuits th
88  inaccurate characterization of the study of orthographic processing is not conducive to the advancem
89 age, recent research and theory suggest that orthographic processing may derive from the exaptation o
90  the orthographic code." Frost suggests that orthographic processing must therefore differ between or
91                                  Interest in orthographic processing reflects an expansion, not const
92 isition is the convergence of the speech and orthographic processing systems onto a common network of
93 onal representations to support a battery of orthographic processing tasks.
94  are using a qualitatively different mode of orthographic processing than is traditionally observed i
95 e, I argue that front-end implementations of orthographic processing that do not stem from a comprehe
96        A new wave of computational models of orthographic processing that offer various forms of nois
97 I tasks captured semantic, phonological, and orthographic processing to shed light on the nature of t
98 trained primates can serve as a precursor of orthographic processing, suggesting that the acquisition
99 iform cortex (BA 37), a region implicated in orthographic processing.
100 honological processing in tasks that require orthographic processing.
101 ine whether lexical feedback modulates early orthographic processing.
102 s, at the N250-an ERP component sensitive to orthographic processing.
103  what the reader must do with the results of orthographic processing.
104 writing systems shape the characteristics of orthographic processing.
105 , existing evidence also implicates degraded orthographic processing.
106 engaged in phonological, but not semantic or orthographic, processing.
107                                         With orthographic projection of a 3D stimulus onto a 2D plane
108                              For example, an orthographic projection of dots on the surface of a rota
109                                        Under orthographic projection this matrix is of rank 3.
110  asymmetric unit (IAU) using azimuthal polar orthographic projections, otherwise known as Phi-Psi (Ph
111 iminate words from nonwords picked up on the orthographic properties that define words and used this
112 perceptual contributions to phonological and orthographic reading development.
113 ion performance explained unique variance in orthographic reading performance.
114 during phonological (pseudoword) than during orthographic (real word) pronunciation.
115 ved a robust interaction between a stimulus' orthographic regularity (bottom-up input) and children's
116  effects of lexicality (word vs pseudoword), orthographic regularity (regular vs irregular spelling-s
117           Electrophysiologically, effects of orthographic regularity and familiarity were apparent as
118 mapping revealed that effects of lexicality, orthographic regularity, and concreteness on reading dif
119 e the lmFG is involved in multiple stages of orthographic representation.
120 that typical children automatically activate orthographic representations during spoken language proc
121                                The nature of orthographic representations in the human brain is still
122  older children who focus more on whole-word orthographic representations may make smaller proficienc
123 ore fine-grained phonological and additional orthographic representations, which sharpen lexical repr
124 s often fail to attain competency in reading orthographic scripts which encode the sound properties o
125 lts provide further support for early morpho-orthographic segmentation processes that operate indepen
126 eractions between brain regions dedicated to orthographic, semantic, and phonological processing whil
127 ficits, such as phonological, morphological, orthographic, semantic, and syntactic deficits, as well
128  and words with semantic relationship but no orthographic similarities (semantics-only).
129 n early lmFG activity was consistent with an orthographic similarity space.
130 ensitivity explained independent variance in orthographic skill but not phonological ability, and aud
131 ity covaried with phonological skill but not orthographic skill.
132 e that the QTL affects both phonological and orthographic skills and is not specific to phoneme aware
133 pmental time course for automatic sublexical orthographic specialization, extending beyond the age of
134 ist-level visual representation sensitive to orthographic statistics, and a later stage that reflects
135 tion efficiency on their neural responses to orthographic stimuli supports the predictive coding acco
136 ural activation elicited by these unattended orthographic stimuli was recorded using multi-channel wh
137 tly smaller role (if any) in the response to orthographic stimuli.
138 stems, with no visual component exclusive to orthographic stimuli.
139 tex the earliest component tuned to familiar orthographic stimuli.
140 ss when words are familiar and filtering out orthographic strings without meaning.
141 eled without considering the manner in which orthographic structure represents phonological, semantic
142 e critical distributional characteristics of orthographic structure that govern reading behavior.
143  speakers of European languages in which the orthographic system codes explicitly for speech sounds.
144          However, alphabets are not the only orthographic systems in use in the world, and hundreds o
145 nological and semantic decoding in different orthographic systems.
146 fficulties in reading words with exceptional orthographic to phonological correspondence (irregular w
147 a role for this area in subword mapping from orthographic to phonological representations.
148 istency and lexicality, indicating a role in orthographic to phonological transformation.
149 t inferior parietal region subserves subword orthographic-to-phonological processes that are recruite
150          The present study shed light on how orthographic transparency constrains grain size and visu
151  to read in two languages differing in their orthographic transparency yields different strategies us
152 haracter-based versus alphabetic systems and orthographic transparency).
153 ttributed to the language's rich morphology, orthographic variation, and the limitation in computing
154 were highly similar for the phonological and orthographic versions of each task type.
155 eports about the specificity of this area in orthographic versus nonorthographic processing.
156 dent lexical access, phonological word form, orthographic word form and motor speech by the pattern o
157 entation sufficient for the individuation of orthographic word forms.
158 sound consistency in the transformation from orthographic (word form) to phonological (word sound) re
159  region or left ventral temporal cortex, and orthographic working memory deficits primarily arising f

 
Page Top