Cognitive Demands of Processing Expository Text: A Cognitive Workbench Model

2017 ◽  
pp. 227-248
Author(s):  
Bruce K. Britton ◽  
Shawn M. Glynn ◽  
Jeffrey W. Smith
Author(s):  
Sini Immonen ◽  
Jukka Mäkisalo

This study explores how the process of translating relates to other types of writing processes by comparing pause lengths preceding syntactic units (words, phrases and clauses) in two types of writing task, a monolingual text production and a translation. It also discusses the grounds for interpreting pause length as a reflection of the cognitive demands of the writing process. The data was collected from 18 professional translators using the Translog keystroke logging software (Jakobsen/Schou 1999). Each subject wrote two texts: an expository text in Finnish and a translation from English into Finnish (Immonen 2006: 316-319). Firstly, phrase boundary pauses were categorised according to type, function and length of phrase. All three features correlate with pause length. On average, predicate phrases are preceded by short pauses, adpositional phrases by long pauses, and pauses preceding noun phrases grow with the length of the phrase. These fi ndings suggest that the processing of the predicate begins before written production of the clause is started, whereas noun phrases and adpositional phrases are processed during writing. Secondly, pauses preceding clauses were categorised with respect to clause type. In monolingual text production, pauses preceding subordinate clauses are on average shorter than those leading to main clauses. In translation, pauses preceding subordinate and main clauses are almost the same length. It seems therefore that, in translation, the main clause and subordinate clause are processed separately despite the fact that the subordinate clause functions as a syntactic unit within the main clause.


Author(s):  
Margreet Vogelzang ◽  
Christiane M. Thiel ◽  
Stephanie Rosemann ◽  
Jochem W. Rieger ◽  
Esther Ruigendijk

Purpose Adults with mild-to-moderate age-related hearing loss typically exhibit issues with speech understanding, but their processing of syntactically complex sentences is not well understood. We test the hypothesis that listeners with hearing loss' difficulties with comprehension and processing of syntactically complex sentences are due to the processing of degraded input interfering with the successful processing of complex sentences. Method We performed a neuroimaging study with a sentence comprehension task, varying sentence complexity (through subject–object order and verb–arguments order) and cognitive demands (presence or absence of a secondary task) within subjects. Groups of older subjects with hearing loss ( n = 20) and age-matched normal-hearing controls ( n = 20) were tested. Results The comprehension data show effects of syntactic complexity and hearing ability, with normal-hearing controls outperforming listeners with hearing loss, seemingly more so on syntactically complex sentences. The secondary task did not influence off-line comprehension. The imaging data show effects of group, sentence complexity, and task, with listeners with hearing loss showing decreased activation in typical speech processing areas, such as the inferior frontal gyrus and superior temporal gyrus. No interactions between group, sentence complexity, and task were found in the neuroimaging data. Conclusions The results suggest that listeners with hearing loss process speech differently from their normal-hearing peers, possibly due to the increased demands of processing degraded auditory input. Increased cognitive demands by means of a secondary visual shape processing task influence neural sentence processing, but no evidence was found that it does so in a different way for listeners with hearing loss and normal-hearing listeners.


2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 1257-1267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Priya Kucheria ◽  
McKay Moore Sohlberg ◽  
Jason Prideaux ◽  
Stephen Fickas

PurposeAn important predictor of postsecondary academic success is an individual's reading comprehension skills. Postsecondary readers apply a wide range of behavioral strategies to process text for learning purposes. Currently, no tools exist to detect a reader's use of strategies. The primary aim of this study was to develop Read, Understand, Learn, & Excel, an automated tool designed to detect reading strategy use and explore its accuracy in detecting strategies when students read digital, expository text.MethodAn iterative design was used to develop the computer algorithm for detecting 9 reading strategies. Twelve undergraduate students read 2 expository texts that were equated for length and complexity. A human observer documented the strategies employed by each reader, whereas the computer used digital sequences to detect the same strategies. Data were then coded and analyzed to determine agreement between the 2 sources of strategy detection (i.e., the computer and the observer).ResultsAgreement between the computer- and human-coded strategies was 75% or higher for 6 out of the 9 strategies. Only 3 out of the 9 strategies–previewing content, evaluating amount of remaining text, and periodic review and/or iterative summarizing–had less than 60% agreement.ConclusionRead, Understand, Learn, & Excel provides proof of concept that a reader's approach to engaging with academic text can be objectively and automatically captured. Clinical implications and suggestions to improve the sensitivity of the code are discussed.Supplemental Materialhttps://doi.org/10.23641/asha.8204786


2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 82-89
Author(s):  
Janet L. Proly ◽  
Jessica Rivers ◽  
Jamie Schwartz

Abstract Graphic organizers are a research based strategy used for facilitating the reading comprehension of expository text. This strategy will be defined and the evolution and supporting evidence for the use of graphic organizers will be discussed. Various types of graphic organizers and resources for SLPs and other educators will also be discussed.


Author(s):  
Davina C. D. Klein ◽  
Harold F. O'Neil ◽  
Eva L. Baker

2021 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 103633
Author(s):  
Mark S. Pfaff ◽  
Ozgur Eris ◽  
Charlene Weir ◽  
Amanda Anganes ◽  
Tina Crotty ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document