scholarly journals Robots facilitate human language production

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga A. Wudarczyk ◽  
Murat Kirtay ◽  
Doris Pischedda ◽  
Verena V. Hafner ◽  
John-Dylan Haynes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Interactions ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Initial Level ◽  
Naming Task ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Inhibitory Effects ◽  
Conceptual Priming ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Verbal Message ◽  
Central Tool

AbstractDespite recent developments in integrating autonomous and human-like robots into many aspects of everyday life, social interactions with robots are still a challenge. Here, we focus on a central tool for social interaction: verbal communication. We assess the extent to which humans co-represent (simulate and predict) a robot’s verbal actions. During a joint picture naming task, participants took turns in naming objects together with a social robot (Pepper, Softbank Robotics). Previous findings using this task with human partners revealed internal simulations on behalf of the partner down to the level of selecting words from the mental lexicon, reflected in partner-elicited inhibitory effects on subsequent naming. Here, with the robot, the partner-elicited inhibitory effects were not observed. Instead, naming was facilitated, as revealed by faster naming of word categories co-named with the robot. This facilitation suggests that robots, unlike humans, are not simulated down to the level of lexical selection. Instead, a robot’s speaking appears to be simulated at the initial level of language production where the meaning of the verbal message is generated, resulting in facilitated language production due to conceptual priming. We conclude that robots facilitate core conceptualization processes when humans transform thoughts to language during speaking.

scholarly journals Conducting Language Production Research Online: A Web-based Study of Semantic Context and Name Agreement Effects in Multi-Word Production

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jieying He ◽  
Antje S. Meyer ◽  
Ava Creemers ◽  
Laurel Brehm
Keyword(s):  
Language Production ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Semantic Category ◽  
Naming Task ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Semantic Context ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Name Agreement ◽  
Production Research

Few web-based experiments have explored spoken language production, perhaps due to concerns of data quality, especially for measuring onset latencies. The present study highlights how speech production research can be done outside of the laboratory by measuring utterance durations and speech fluency in a multiple-object naming task when examining two effects related to lexical selection: semantic context and name agreement. A web-based modified blocked-cyclic naming paradigm was created, in which participants named a total of sixteen simultaneously presented pictures on each trial. The pictures were either four tokens from the same semantic category (homogeneous context), or four tokens from different semantic categories (heterogeneous context). Name agreement of the pictures was varied orthogonally (high, low). In addition to onset latency, five dependent variables were measured to index naming performance: accuracy, utterance duration, total pause time, the number of chunks (word groups pronounced without intervening pauses), and first chunk length. Bayesian analyses showed effects of semantic context and name agreement for some of the dependent measures, but no interaction. We discuss the methodological implications of the current study and make best practice recommendations for spoken language production research in an online environment.

scholarly journals Comparing the cognate effect in spoken and written second language word production

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Merel Muylle ◽  
Eva Van Assche ◽  
Robert Hartsuiker
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Picture Naming ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Naming Task ◽  
Written Language ◽  
Word Production ◽  
Error Pattern ◽  
Underlying Processes

Cognates – words that share form and meaning between languages – are processed faster than control words. However, it is unclear whether this effect is merely lexical (i.e., central) in nature, or whether it cascades to phonological/orthographic (i.e., peripheral) processes. This study compared the cognate effect in spoken and typewritten production, which share central, but not peripheral processes. We inquired whether this effect is present in typewriting, and if so, whether its magnitude is similar to spoken production. Dutch-English bilinguals performed either a spoken or written picture naming task in English; picture names were either Dutch-English cognates or control words. Cognates were named faster than controls and there was no cognate-by-modality interaction. Additionally, there was a similar error pattern in both modalities. These results suggest that common underlying processes are responsible for the cognate effect in spoken and written language production, and thus a central locus of the cognate effect.

Word form retrieval in language production

2007 ◽  
pp. 470-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antje S. Meyer ◽  
Eva Belke
Keyword(s):  
Language Production ◽  
Knowledge Building ◽  
Word Production ◽  
Word Form ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Single Word ◽  
Phonological Representations ◽  
Phonological Knowledge ◽  
Phonetic Code ◽  
Selection Of

Current models of word form retrieval converge on central assumptions. They all distinguish between morphological, phonological, and phonetic representations and processes; they all assume morphological and phonological decomposition, and agree on the main processing units at these levels. In addition, all current models of word form postulate the same basic retrieval mechanisms: activation and selection of units. Models of word production often distinguish between processes concerning the selection of a single word unit from the mental lexicon and the retrieval of the associated word form. This article explores lexical selection and word form retrieval in language production. Following the distinctions in linguistic theory, it discusses morphological encoding, phonological encoding, and phonetic encoding. The article also considers the representation of phonological knowledge, building of phonological representations, segmental retrieval, retrieval of metrical information, generating the phonetic code of words, and a model of word form retrieval.

Brain-imaging studies of language production

2007 ◽  
pp. 546-564
Author(s):  
Peter Indefrey
Keyword(s):  
Brain Imaging ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Brain Regions ◽  
Code Word ◽  
Word Production ◽  
Production Model ◽  
Exact Nature ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Imaging Studies ◽  
Independent Evidence

This article adopts the production model of Levelt to discuss brain imaging studies of continuous speech. Conclusions about the involvement of brain regions in processes of language production are mainly drawn on the basis of the presence or absence of processing components of speaking in certain experimental tasks. Such conclusions are largely theory independent, because differences between current models do not concern the assumed processing levels but the exact nature of the information flow between them. In a second step, the article tests some of these conclusions by comparing the few available data on activation time courses of brain regions and independent evidence on the timing of processes in language production. It also discusses brain regions involved in word production, conceptually driven lexical selection, phonological code (word form) retrieval, phonological encoding, phonetic encoding and articulation, self-monitoring, whether the hemodynamic core areas are necessary for word production, and bilingual language production.

The modality switching costs of Chinese–English bilinguals in the processing of L1 and L2

2019 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 396-412
Author(s):  
Tianyang Zhao ◽  
Yanli Huang ◽  
Donggui Chen ◽  
Lu Jiao ◽  
Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Language Comprehension ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Switching Costs ◽  
Naming Task ◽  
Visual Modality ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Auditory Modality ◽  
Sequential Information ◽  
Modality Switching ◽  
L1 And L2

Modality switching cost indicates that people’s performance becomes worse when they judge sequential information that is related to different sensory modalities than judging information that is related to the same modality. In this study, we conducted three experiments on proficient and non-proficient bilingual individuals to investigate the modality switching costs in L1 and L2 processing separately. In Experiment 1, materials were L1 and L2 words that were either conceptually related to a visual modality (e.g., light) or related to an auditory modality (e.g., song). The modality switching costs were investigated in a lexical decision task in both L1 and L2. Experiment 2 further explored the modality switching costs while weakening the activation level of the perceptual modality by adding a set of fillers. Experiment 3 used a word-naming task to explore the modality switching effect in language production in L1 and L2. Results of these experiments showed that the modality switching costs appeared in both language comprehension and production in L1 and L2 conditions. The magnitude of the modality switching costs was conditionally modulated by the L2 proficiency level, such as in the L2 condition in Experiment 1 and in both L1 and L2 conditions in Experiment 3. These results suggest that sensorimotor simulation is involved in not only language comprehension but also language production. The sensorimotor simulation that is acquired in L1 can be transferred to L2.

scholarly journals Neural systems for sign language production: Mechanisms supporting lexical selection, phonological encoding, and articulation

2004 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 156-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucila San José-Robertson ◽  
David P. Corina ◽  
Debra Ackerman ◽  
Andre Guillemin ◽  
Allen R. Braun
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Neural Systems ◽  
Phonological Encoding ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Production Mechanisms

Phonological and grammatical class cohorts in word production

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-97
Author(s):  
Pauline Pellet Cheneval ◽  
Marina Laganaro
Keyword(s):  
Naming Task ◽  
Word Production ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Cohort Size ◽  
Grammatical Category ◽  
Facilitation Effect ◽  
Grammatical Class ◽  
Word Onset ◽  
Lexical Hypothesis ◽  
Healthy Participants

Abstract The lexical or sub-lexical loci of facilitation of word production by phonological cueing/priming are debated. We investigate whether phonological cues facilitate word production at the level of lexical selection by manipulating the size of the cohort of word onsets matching the cue. In the framework of lexical facilitation, a phonological cue corresponding to a small number of words should be more effective than a cue corresponding to a larger cohort. However, a lexical locus can clearly be inferred only if the facilitation effect in picture naming is modulated by a specific grammatical lexical cohort and not by the overall word onset cohort. Twenty-seven healthy participants performed an object/noun (Exp1) and an action/verb (Exp2) naming task with cues corresponding to large/small noun/verb onset cohorts. Results revealed that facilitation was modulated by the lexical onset cohort size of the cue in the target grammatical category. These results favour the lexical hypothesis and further suggest a categorical organization of the lexicon.

Priming and the Effects of Sentence and Lexical Contexts on Naming Time: Evidence for Autonomous Lexical Processing

1981 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 465-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. I. Forster
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Lexical Processing ◽  
Naming Task ◽  
Decision Time ◽  
Semantic Integration ◽  
Access Time ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Naming Time ◽  
Inhibitory Effects

Models of language processing which stress the autonomy of processing at each level predict that the semantic properties of an incomplete sentence context should have no influence on lexical processing, either facilitatory or inhibitory. An experiment similar to those reported by Fischler and Bloom (1979) and Stanovich and West (1979, 1981) was conducted using naming time as an index of lexical access time. No facilitatory effects of context were observed for either highly predictable or semantically appropriate (but unpredictable) completions, whereas strong inhibitory effects were obtained for inappropriate completions. When lexical decision time was the dependent measure, the same results were obtained, except that predictable completions now produced strong facilitation. In a further experiment the inhibitory effects of context on lexical decision times for inappropriate targets were maintained, even though unfocussed contexts were used, in which no clear expectancy for a particular completion was involved. These results were interpreted in terms of a two-factor theory which attributes the facilitation observed with the lexical decision task to postaccess decision processes which are not involved in the naming task. The inhibitory effects were attributed to interference resulting from semantic integration. In contrast to the results for sentence contexts, lexical contexts of the doctor-nurse variety produced clear facilitation effects on naming time (but no inhibitory effects). It was also shown that relatively minor variations in the type of neutral context could completely alter the relative importance of facilitation and inhibition.

scholarly journals Are phonological influences on lexical (mis)selection the result of a monitoring bias?

2008 ◽  
Vol 61 (11) ◽  
pp. 1687-1709 ◽  
Author(s):  
Els Severens ◽  
Elie Ratinckx ◽  
Victor S. Ferreira ◽  
Robert J. Hartsuiker
Keyword(s):  
Information Flow ◽  
Production System ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Related Word ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Bottom Up ◽  
Error Patterns ◽  
Speech Error ◽  
Interactive Models ◽  
Phonological Errors

A monitoring bias account is often used to explain speech error patterns that seem to be the result of an interactive language production system, like phonological influences on lexical selection errors. A biased monitor is suggested to detect and covertly correct certain errors more often than others. For instance, this account predicts that errors that are phonologically similar to intended words are harder to detect than those that are phonologically dissimilar. To test this, we tried to elicit phonological errors under the same conditions as those that show other kinds of lexical selection errors. In five experiments, we presented participants with high cloze probability sentence fragments followed by a picture that was semantically related, a homophone of a semantically related word, or phonologically related to the (implicit) last word of the sentence. All experiments elicited semantic completions or homophones of semantic completions, but none elicited phonological completions. This finding is hard to reconcile with a monitoring bias account and is better explained with an interactive production system. Additionally, this finding constrains the amount of bottom-up information flow in interactive models.

scholarly journals Lexical Selection in Language Production

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Winston Downes
Keyword(s):  
University Students ◽  
Speech Production ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Noun Phrase ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Semantic Relatedness ◽  
First Year ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
First Year University

<p>Two experiments were conducted with first-year university students in an effort to discover more about what happens when a phrase is spoken. A paradigm was constructed with the intention of getting the participants to produce a simple, two-noun phrase at a cue and then 'catch' them out having them say the name of a single picture presented instead. The single picture presented to 'catch' the participants out (instead of the cue) was either the first or second name in the simple two-noun phrase, or a third, unplanned picture. The intention was to compare the relative timings of the different catch pictures in an effort to discover which of two theories of speech production best describes the cognitive processes that underlie such processes. The second experiment was an extension of this idea but also included a semantic relatedness variable, where the catch picture could be semantically related to an item shown during the planning of the simple, two-noun phrase. The results of these experiments were not in line with the hypothesis regarding the relative timings of the catch pictures, but were in line with the hypothesis that it would take longer to name catch pictures that were preceded by semantically related pictures. Implications of such findings are discussed along with possible future modifications to extend the utility of the paradigm used in this study.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document