, 2002). Enhanced N100 and reduced P200 amplitudes for phoneme match might reflect enhanced attention drawn to immediate syllable repetition and repeated activation of the very same abstract speech

sound representations once by the prime syllable and once by the target word onset. Between 300 and 400 ms, a so-called P350 effect has been obtained in both unimodal and cross-modal word onset priming (e.g., Friedrich, 2005, Friedrich et al., Ivacaftor nmr 2004, Friedrich et al., 2004, Friedrich et al., 2009 and Schild et al., 2012). We formerly related the P350 to accessing modality independent word form representations tapped by both spoken and written target words. This interpretation is backed-up by a comparable MEG deflection, named the M350, which is elicited in response to visual words and has been associated with aspects of lexical access (Pylkkänen & Marantz, 2003). Both the N100–P200 complex and the P350 were characterized by left-lateralized topography in our former studies. Between HKI-272 research buy 200 and 300 ms, we found a central negativity, with bilateral distribution in unimodal word onset priming (e.g., Friedrich et al., 2009 and Schild

et al., 2012). A comparable effect started at around 400 ms in cross-modal word onset priming (e.g., Friedrich, 2005, Friedrich et al., 2004 and Friedrich et al., 2004). Epothilone B (EPO906, Patupilone) Central negativity was reduced for phoneme match compared to phoneme mismatch and therewith relates to N400-like effects. It is still a matter of debate whether the N400 in auditory speech recognition starts earlier than in visual language processing (Van Petten, Coulson, Rubin, Plante, & Parks, 1999) or whether a different ERP deflection than the N400 is elicited by phonological aspects of auditory stimuli (e.g., Hagoort and Brown, 2000 and van den Brink et al., 2001). Reduced negativity in spoken word processing has been related to phonological expectancy mechanisms (e.g.,

the phonological mismatch negativity [PMN] for expected words in sentences or lists: Connolly and Phillips, 1994, Connolly et al., 2001, Diaz and Swaab, 2007 and Schiller et al., 2009; or the phonological N400 for rhyme priming: Praamstra et al., 1994 and Praamstra and Stegeman, 1993). Based on this interpretation we argued that the central negativity observed in word onset priming reflects neurobiological mechanisms that take the auditory information of the prime syllable to roughly predict the upcoming target word (Friedrich et al., 2009). Therewith, aspects of the processing system underlying the central negativity do not necessarily need to involve lexical representations. In the present study we target possible causes of the unique polarity of posterior ERP stress priming obtained in a unimodal paradigm (Schild et al., 2014).