Differences in Event-Related Potential Responses to Japanese Onomatopoeias and Common Words


In this study, we measured event-related potential (ERP) responses to onomatopoeias (imitative words and mimetic words) and common words. Previous studies have shown that onomatopoeias are cognitively processed differently than common words. However, whether the temporal aspects of cognitive processing differ between onomatopoeias and common words remains unclear. The amplitude of the late positive complex (LPC), an index of sustained cognitive processing, of the ERP response to onomatopoeias was smaller than that for common words. In addition, the difference in the amplitude of the LPC between onomatopoeias and common words appeared from 200 ms until 900 ms after stimulus onset, suggesting that onomatopoeias do not require obligatory attentional capture or continued processing and encoding. Furthermore, marked differences between onomatopoeias and common words were evident in the early stages of cognitive processing. These results suggest that the temporal aspects of cognitive processing differ between onomatopoeias and common words.

Share and Cite:

Egashira, Y. , Choi, D. , Motoi, M. , Nishimura, T. and Watanuki, S. (2015) Differences in Event-Related Potential Responses to Japanese Onomatopoeias and Common Words. Psychology, 6, 1653-1660. doi: 10.4236/psych.2015.613161.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Asaga, C., Mukarramah, Y., & Watanabe, C. (2008). ONOMATOPEDIA: Onomatopoeia Online Example Dictionary System Extracted from Data on the Web. Progress in WWW Research and Development (pp. 601-612). Berlin: Springer.
[2] Belin, P., Fecteau, S., & Bedard, C. (2004). Thinking the Voice: Neural Correlates of Voice Perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 129-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.01.008
[3] Boutonnet, B., & Lupyan, G. (2015). Words Jump-Start Vision: A Label Advantage in Object Recognition. The Journal of Neuroscience, 35, 9329-9335.
[4] Clarke, S., Bellmann, A., Meuli, R. A., Assal, G., & Steck, A. J. (2000). Auditory Agnosia and Auditory Spatial Deficits Following Left Hemispheric Lesions: Evidence for Distinct Processing Pathways. Neuropsychologia, 38, 797-807.
[5] Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a Neural Basis of Auditory Sentence Processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 78-84.
[6] Gable, P. A., & Adams, D. L. (2013). Nonaffective Motivation Modulates the Sustained LPP (1,000-2,000 ms). Psychophysiology, 50, 1251-1254.
[7] Hajcak, G., Dunning, J. P., & Foti, D. (2009). Motivated and Controlled Attention to Emotion: Time-Course of the Late Positive Potential. Clinical Neurophysiology, 120, 505-510.
[8] Halgren, E., Marinkovic, K., & Chauvel, P. (1998). Generators of the Late Cognitive Potentials in Auditory and Visual Oddball Tasks. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 106, 156-164.
[9] Hashimoto, T., Usui, N., Taira, M., Nose, I., Haji, T., & Kojima, S. (2006). The Neural Mechanism Associated with the Processing of Onomatopoeic Sounds. Neuroimage, 31, 1762-1770.
[10] Hinojosa, J. A., Méndez-Bértolo, C., & Pozo, M. A. (2012). High Arousal Words Influence Subsequent Processing of Neutral Information: Evidence from Event-Related Potentials. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 86, 143-151.
[11] Iwasaki, N., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2007). What Do English Speakers Know about Gera-Gera and Yota-Yota?: A Cross-Linguistic Investigation of Mimetic Words for Laughing and Walking. Japanese-Language Education around the Globe, 17, 53-78.
[12] Jones, B. C., Feinberg, D. R., DeBruine, L. M., Little, A. C., & Vukovic, J. (2010). A Domain-Specific Opposite-Sex Bias in Human Preferences for Manipulated Voice Pitch. Animal Behaviour, 79, 57-62.
[13] Kanero, J., Imai, M., Okuda, J., Okada, H., & Matsuda, T. (2014). How Sound Symbolism Is Processed in the Brain: A Study on Japanese Mimetic Words. PLoS ONE, 9, e97905. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097905
[14] Knight, R. T., & Scabini, D. (1998). Anatomic Bases of Event-Related Potentials and Their Relationship to Novelty Detection in Humans. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 15, 3-13.
[15] Kramer, A. F., Wickens, C. D., & Donchin, E. (1985). Processing of Stimulus Properties: Evidence for Dual-Task Integrality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 393-408.
[16] Levy, D. A., Granot, R., & Bentin, S. (2003). Neural Sensitivity to Human Voices: ERP Evidence of Task and Attentional Influences. Psychophysiology, 40, 291-305.
[17] Lockwood, G., & Tuomainen, J. (2015). Ideophonesin Japanese Modulate the P2 and Late Positive Complex Responses. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 933.
[18] Lupyan, G., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2012). The Evocative Power of Words: Activation of Concepts by Verbal and Nonverbal Means. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 170-186.
[19] Nätänen, R., & Picton, T. (1987). The N1 Wave of the Human Electric and Magnetic Response to Sound: A Review and an Analysis of the Component Structure. Psychophysiology, 24, 375-425.
[20] Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: An Integrative Theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118, 2128-2148.
[21] Ritter, W., Simson, R., & Vaughan, H. G. (1988). Effects of the Amount of Stimulus Information Processed on Negative Event-Related Potentials. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 69, 244-258.
[22] Schupp, H. T., Flaisch, T., Stockburger, J., & Junghöfer, M. (2006). Emotion and Attention: Event-Related Brain Potential Studies. Progress in Brain Research, 156, 31-51.
[23] Sokhi, D. S., Hunter, M. D., Wilkinson, I. D., & Woodruff, P. W. (2005). Male and Female Voices Activate Distinct Regions in the Male Brain. Neuroimage, 27, 572-578.
[24] Thierry, G., Giraud, A. L., & Price, C. (2003). Hemispheric Dissociation in Access to the Human Semantic System. Neuron, 38, 499-506.
[25] Weinberg, A., & Hajcak, G. (2011). The Late Positive Potential Predicts Subsequent Interference with Target Processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 2994-3007.

Copyright © 2022 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.