Poster No:
809
Submission Type:
Late-Breaking Abstract Submission
Authors:
Wenxiyuan Deng1, Nizhuan Wang2, Wai Ting Siok2
Institutions:
1The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 2The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
First Author:
Co-Author(s):
Introduction:
Empirical evidence indicates that subliminal stimuli-presented below the threshold of conscious perception-can activate semantic processing (Van den Bussche et al., 2009), though this capacity is constrained by factors such as stimulus type (Kongthong et al., 2013), presentation duration (Pessoa & Ungerleider, 2005) and complexity (Rabagliati, 2018), particularly for lexical items. Idioms, as figurative expressions with non-compositional meanings, require rapid integration of holistic semantic representations rather than literal, word-by-word parsing. This unique property positions them as important tools for probing the limits of subliminal semantic retrieval, particularly under time-constrained conditions. A key unresolved question is whether subliminal exposure to idioms activates their figurative meanings, literal meanings, or both. While prior work using semantic priming paradigms has revealed facilitative effects for idioms, such studies have relied on long stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) (Sprenger et al., 2024), leaving the potential for subliminal processing at shorter SOAs untested. The present study addresses this gap by investigating Chinese idioms through two primary objectives: (1) to determine whether subliminal priming effects can be detected at short SOAs using electrophysiological (EEG) measures, and (2) to examine whether the neural correlates of such processing differ from those observed in studies of alphabetic-language idioms. By integrating EEG methods with a focus on non-alphabetic stimuli, this work advances understanding of the temporal and cross-linguistic constraints on subliminal semantic retrieval.
Methods:
Four-character Chinese idioms served as subliminal primes, paired with semantically related (figuratively or literally) or unrelated two-character Chinese target words; stroke-matched two-character pseudowords acted as fillers. Stimuli were matched for character strokes, word frequency, and lexical familiarity, excluding esoteric terms. Thirteen healthy native Cantonese-speaking adults (mean age 20.3 years) completed the task under two stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) conditions: 100 ms and 150 ms. On each trial, participants performed a lexical decision task immediately after target onset and then rated each idiom's subjective familiarity and perceived literality on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = low, 7 = high). For behavioral analysis, response times (RTs) from correct trials were analyzed after excluding outliers (>2.5 median absolute deviations). Event-related potential (ERP) data were preprocessed using EEGLAB, extracting mean amplitudes from central-parietal electrodes during critical time windows (e.g., N400, LPC) for statistical comparison.
Results:
Participants rated the idioms as highly familiar (M = 6.06–6.53) and moderately literal (M = 4.12–4.58). Contrary to our initial hypothesis, behavioral data showed inhibitory priming: responses were faster for unrelated targets (M = 643.8 ms) than for related targets (M = 697.1 ms), F(1, 12) = 34.4, p < .001, ηₚ² = .73. Repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted for the N400 (350–450 ms) and Late Positive Component (LPC; 600–800 ms) windows, with Condition (Related vs. Unrelated) and SOA as within-participant factors. No significant effects were observed in the N400 window. However, in the LPC window at central electrode sites (C3, C1, Cz, C2, C4), there was a significant main effect of Condition (F(1, 12) = 8.3, p = .014, ηₚ² = .41); larger amplitudes were observed for targets preceded by semantically related primes (M = 1.60, SD = 0.45) compared to unrelated primes (M = 1.23, SD = 0.40).
Conclusions:
This study found an inhibitory priming effect: faster responses to unrelated targets and larger LPC amplitudes for related primes. The absence of significant N400 effects suggests that early semantic processing may be less sensitive to the brief SOAs employed, with neural differentiation emerging during later integrative stages.
Language:
Language Comprehension and Semantics 1
Novel Imaging Acquisition Methods:
EEG 2
Keywords:
ADULTS
Electroencephaolography (EEG)
Language
1|2Indicates the priority used for review
By submitting your proposal, you grant permission for the Organization for Human Brain Mapping (OHBM) to distribute your work in any format, including video, audio print and electronic text through OHBM OnDemand, social media channels, the OHBM website, or other electronic publications and media.
I accept
The Open Science Special Interest Group (OSSIG) is introducing a reproducibility challenge for OHBM 2025. This new initiative aims to enhance the reproducibility of scientific results and foster collaborations between labs. Teams will consist of a “source” party and a “reproducing” party, and will be evaluated on the success of their replication, the openness of the source work, and additional deliverables. Click here for more information.
Propose your OHBM abstract(s) as source work for future OHBM meetings by selecting one of the following options:
I am submitting this abstract as an original work to be reproduced. I am available to be the “source party” in an upcoming team and consent to have this work listed on the OSSIG website. I agree to be contacted by OSSIG regarding the challenge and may share data used in this abstract with another team.
Please indicate below if your study was a "resting state" or "task-activation” study.
Task-activation
Healthy subjects only or patients (note that patient studies may also involve healthy subjects):
Healthy subjects
Was this research conducted in the United States?
No
Were any human subjects research approved by the relevant Institutional Review Board or ethics panel?
NOTE: Any human subjects studies without IRB approval will be automatically rejected.
Yes
Were any animal research approved by the relevant IACUC or other animal research panel?
NOTE: Any animal studies without IACUC approval will be automatically rejected.
Not applicable
Please indicate which methods were used in your research:
EEG/ERP
Behavior
Which processing packages did you use for your study?
Other, Please list
-
EEGLAB
Provide references using APA citation style.
Delorme A & Makeig S (2004) EEGLAB: an open-source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics, Journal of Neuroscience Methods 134:9-21.
Kongthong, N., Minami, T., & Nakauchi, S. (2013). Semantic processing in subliminal face stimuli: an EEG and tDCS study. Neuroscience letters, 544, 141-146.
Pessoa, L., Japee, S., & Ungerleider, L. G. (2005). Visual awareness and the detection of fearful faces. Emotion, 5(2), 243.
Rabagliati, H., Robertson, A., & Carmel, D. (2018). The importance of awareness for understanding language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(2), 190.
Sprenger, S. A., Beck, S. D., & Weber, A. (2024). What fires together, wires together: The effect of idiomatic co-occurrence on lexical networks. Languages, 9(3), 105.
Van den Bussche, E., Van den Noortgate, W., & Reynvoet, B. (2009). Mechanisms of masked priming: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 135(3), 452.
No