Those were indicated by an interaction of the factors Target, Carfilzomib purchase Region and Hemisphere (F(1, 17) = 6.34, p < .05). Over posterior left regions, amplitudes to initially stressed targets were more negative than ERP amplitudes to initially unstressed targets, t(17) = 8.61, p = .01 (see Fig. 7). It appears that this effect reflects delayed word processing of initially stressed targets compared to initially unstressed targets. Indeed, analysis of the latency of the negative peak between 300 and 600 ms over posterior left electrodes indicates a significant difference

between both conditions, t(17) = 4.09, p < .001. The peak occurred approximately 20 ms later for initially stressed targets compared to initially unstressed targets (see Fig. 7). Crucially with respect to our hypotheses, there was an interaction of the factors Stress Priming and Region (F(1, 17) = 9.06, p < .01). Over anterior regions, amplitudes for Stress Match were more negative compared to amplitudes for Stress Mismatch, t(17) = 2.88, p = .01. Over posterior regions, the opposite pattern was observed, ITF2357 datasheet t(17) = 3.07, p < .01, Fig.

6. Mean ERPs and topographical voltage maps for the main effect of Stress Priming are illustrated in Fig. 6. None of the interactions including the factors Stress Priming and Target did approach significance, F ⩽ 1.08, p ⩾ 0.3. This indicates similar ERP stress priming for initially stressed target words and initially unstressed target words. The overall ANOVA revealed a significant interaction of the factors Phoneme Priming and Region, F(1, 17) = 7.68, p = .01. Over

anterior electrode leads, Phoneme Match elicited more positive amplitudes than Phoneme Mismatch, t(17) = 2.85, p = .01. Over posterior regions, the opposite pattern was observed, t(17) = 2.56, p = .02. There was neither a main effect of the factor Stress Priming or Target, nor any interaction including one or both of Ketotifen these factors. In sum, there was robust phoneme priming in the behavioral data and in the ERPs. Phoneme match facilitated lexical decisions. Between 100 and 300 ms, phoneme match elicited enhanced N100 amplitudes and reduced P200 amplitudes in the ERPs. Between 600 and 900 ms, phoneme match elicited reduced posterior negativity paralleled by enhanced frontal negativity. Only a single time window in the consecutive 50 ms analyses (350–400 ms) was indicative for phoneme priming in the P350 and central negativity time window. We did not find reliable stress priming in the behavioral data, but there was robust ERP stress priming. Stress match elicited reduced posterior negativity paralleled by enhanced frontal positivity between 300 and 600 ms. Phoneme priming and Stress priming did not interact. We could not ensure that initially stressed and initially unstressed target words were exactly comparable.