Unmasking the Effects of Orthography, Semantics, and Phonology on 2AFC Visual Word Perceptual Identification

In the two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) task, the target stimulus is presented very briefly, and the participants must choose between two options as to which was the presented target. Some past research (Grossi et al., 2009; Haro et al., 2019) has assumed that the 2AFC word identification task isolates orthographic effects, despite orthographic, semantic, and phonological differences between the alternative options. If so, performance should not differ between word target/nonword foil pairs and British/American word pairs, the latter of which only differ orthographically. In Experiment 1, accuracy and sensitivity were higher during word/nonword trials than British/American trials when participants stated their response was not a guess, demonstrating that phonological/semantic processing contributes to 2AFC performance. In Experiment 2, target visibility was manipulated by increasing the contrast between target and mask for half the trials. Experiment 2 showed that target visibility did not interact with pair type on reaction time, which suggests phonological/semantic processing did not result in feedback to orthographic encoding in this task. This study demonstrates the influence of phonological/semantic processing on word perceptual identification, and shows that 2AFC word identification does not isolate orthographic effects when word/nonword pairs are used, but using British/American word pairs provides a method for doing so. Implications for models and future research are discussed.

Bias effects in a two-stage recognition paradigm: A challenge for ‘pure’ threshold and signal detection models

We explored a two-stage recognition memory paradigm in which people first make single-item “studied”/“not studied” decisions and then have a chance to correct their errors in forced-choice trials. Each forced-choice trial included one studied word (“target”) and one non-studied word (“lure”) that received the same previous single-item response. For example, a “studied”-“studied” trial would have a target that was correctly called “studied” and a lure that was incorrectly called “studied.” The two-high-threshold (2HT) model and the unequal-variance signal detection (UVSD) model predict opposite effects of biasing the initial single-item responses on subsequent forced-choice accuracy. Results from two experiments showed that the bias effect is actually near zero and well out of the range of effects predicted by either model. Follow-up analyses showed that the model failures were not a function of experiment artifacts like changing memory states between the two types of recognition trials. Follow-up analyses also showed that the dual process signal detection (DPSD) model made better predictions for the forced-choice data than 2HT and UVSD models.

Advantage of Handwriting Over Typing on Learning Words: Evidence From an N400 Event-Related Potential Index

The growing implementation of digital education comes with an increased need to understand the impact of digital tools on learning. Previous behavioral studies have shown that handwriting on paper is more effective for learning than typing on a keyboard. However, the impact of writing with a digital pen on a tablet remains to be clarified. In the present study, we compared learning by handwriting with an ink pen on paper, handwriting with a digital pen on a tablet, and typing on a keyboard. Behavioral and electroencephalographic indices were measured immediately after learning with each writing tool. The moods of the subjects during the training were also assessed. The participants were divided according to their use of digital pen in their everyday lives, allowing us to take into account the effect of the familiarity with the digital pen on the learning process (familiar group vs. unfamiliar group). We performed an EEG experiment applying a repetition priming paradigm. In each trial, a learned foreign language word (prime word) and a mother tongue word (target word) were consecutively presented. The target word was either semantically identical to the prime word (repetitive condition) or different (non-repetitive condition). We assumed that a larger priming effect on N400 reflects larger learning progress. The familiar group showed a greater N400 priming effect for words learned with the digital or ink pen than those learned with the keyboard. The unfamiliar group showed the greater N400 priming effect for words learned with the ink pen compared with words learned by typing. In addition, positive mood during learning was significantly higher during handwriting than during typing, regardless of the groups. On the other hand, the behavioral indices were not influenced by the writing tool. These results suggest that the movements involved in handwriting allow a greater memorization of new words. The advantage of handwriting over typing might also be caused by a more positive mood during learning. Finally, our results show that handwriting with a digital pen and tablet can increase the ability to learn compared with keyboard typing once the individuals are accustomed to it.

Brain correlates of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) during somatosensory and interoceptive attention: A functional MRI (fMRI) study.

e24095 Background: Over half of patients receiving neurotoxic taxane, platinum, or bortezomib chemotherapy experience CIPN—a dose-limiting toxicity involving numbness and pain in the extremities. There are limited biomarkers and treatments for CIPN partly due to lack of knowledge of its pathophysiology. Here, we studied whether CIPN involves changes in the brain’s sensory processing circuitry to inform novel brain-based biomarkers and brain-based treatments for CIPN. Methods: Eleven patients scheduled to receive taxane, platinum, or bortezomib rated CIPN severity (CIPN-20) and completed an fMRI scan before starting neurotoxic chemotherapy and/or 12 weeks later. The 7-min fMRI task involved alternating 20-sec trials of distinct attentional focus: (1) their left fingertips (somatosensory attention), (2) their heart (interoceptive attention), and (3) a flashing word “target” (visual attention; the reference condition). We found an activation cluster in primary somatosensory cortex (S1) comparing somatosensory vs. visual attention and another cluster in primary interoceptive cortex (mid/posterior insula) comparing interoceptive vs. visual attention. We tested for associations between CIPN severity and task-based activations in S1 and the insula. Because this is a pilot study, we present effect sizes (ESs) using Cohen’s d and Pearson’s r, not p-values. Results: The 11 patients were 63±12 years old, 54% women, and 54% had breast cancer with high-quality fMRI data (16 scans; 8 pre-chemotherapy). As expected, somatosensory attention increased activation in S1 compared to visual attention (ES = 1.46), and interoceptive attention increased activation in the insula compared to visual attention (ES = 0.94). Patients with worse CIPN had smaller increases in S1 activation during somatosensory vs. visual attention (ES = 0.38), suggesting reduced S1 activation during somatosensory attention (i.e., failure to activate S1) and/or increased S1 activation during visual attention (i.e., S1 chronically activated). Similarly, patients with worse CIPN had smaller increases in insula activation during interoceptive vs. visual attention (ES = 0.57). Individual differences in S1 or insula activity were not significantly explained by age, anxiety, or problems remembering (all ESs < 0.12). Conclusions: CIPN severity was associated with changes in brain activity during a simple attentional task during fMRI scanning, implicating the brain’s somatosensory and interoceptive processing in CIPN. Future work should test for replication and develop biomarkers and treatments for CIPN that target somatosensory and interoceptive processing, perhaps using this attention task. NCT03021174. Funding: NIH R25CA102618, UG1CA189961, K07CA221931. Clinical trial information: NCT03021174.

Why do non-native English speakers show masked form priming when native speakers do not?

Native English speakers do not show masked priming effects in lexical decision when a prime word is related to its target purely on the basis of orthographic form (e.g., pillow-PILL, protest-PROTECT). There is strong evidence, however, that non-native English speakers do show such form priming. This paper explores the possible cognitive mechanisms behind this difference between native and non-native speakers. Taft and Li (2020) found that only non-native speakers (with Chinese as their first language) showed priming when the nonword prime ended in the same embedded word as the word target (e.g., plerough-THOROUGH), but a newly reported experiment goes on to show priming for native speakers as well when the shared letter-combination is not itself a word (e.g., celtoise-TORTOISE). This contrast in results leads to the interpretation that native speakers have a specific mechanism for activating embedded words that is important when recognizing polymorphemic words through their stems. It is suggested that non-native speakers, or at least those with Chinese as their first language, do not engage or are slow in engaging such a mechanism. The form priming that they demonstrate arises from facilitated processing of the repeated letters rather than the pre-activation of a lexical representation.

دور لغة الجسد في تعليم اللغة العربية لغير الناطقين بها من خلال درس المفردات نموذجا

This research aims to reveal and know the importance of the role of body language in teaching Arabic to non-native speakers, especially in teaching vocabulary. This research depends on the qualitative and descriptive approach, where data is collected by looking at some books that contain topics of body language and vocabulary education as being from the primary sources, as well as all references related to this research from scientific research, refereed journals, articles and periodicals, and others as secondary sources. And the researcher may resort to some considered addresses documented in the international network of additional information. The result of this study was a The role of body language in teaching vocabulary is very important, through which the student can understand the meanings of the targeted vocabulary easily and these meanings are firmly established in his mind. The importance of body language in actual teaching using the non-linguistic method is shown in explaining the meanings of the targeted vocabulary in one of the following methods: meaning representation, role representation, position and context, reference and presentation, and direct experience. In applying this method, the following basic principles should be observed : An appropriate method in a statement meaningful significant words, not to explain more than one word at the same time, one word target recording on the blackboard by typing clear and the size of a large, repeat target words identical to the statement of movements, signs and gestures, and others, attention attracted students to focus on the statement and try to explain the desired meaning, not to increase the non-targeted alien word when making the statement, using the method of explanation as it suits the type of target words, giving the learner the opportunity to repeat the targeted words in accordance with the statement of movements, signs, gestures, etc.

Describing Phonological Paraphasias in Three Variants of Primary Progressive Aphasia

Purpose The purpose of this study was to describe the linguistic environment of phonological paraphasias in 3 variants of primary progressive aphasia (semantic, logopenic, and nonfluent) and to describe the profiles of paraphasia production for each of these variants. Method Discourse samples of 26 individuals diagnosed with primary progressive aphasia were investigated for phonological paraphasias using the criteria established for the Philadelphia Naming Test (Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute, 2013). Phonological paraphasias were coded for paraphasia type, part of speech of the target word, target word frequency, type of segment in error, word position of consonant errors, type of error, and degree of change in consonant errors. Results Eighteen individuals across the 3 variants produced phonological paraphasias. Most paraphasias were nonword, followed by formal, and then mixed, with errors primarily occurring on nouns and verbs, with relatively few on function words. Most errors were substitutions, followed by addition and deletion errors, and few sequencing errors. Errors were evenly distributed across vowels, consonant singletons, and clusters, with more errors occurring in initial and medial positions of words than in the final position of words. Most consonant errors consisted of only a single-feature change, with few 2- or 3-feature changes. Importantly, paraphasia productions by variant differed from these aggregate results, with unique production patterns for each variant. Conclusions These results suggest that a system where paraphasias are coded as present versus absent may be insufficient to adequately distinguish between the 3 subtypes of PPA. The 3 variants demonstrate patterns that may be used to improve phenotyping and diagnostic sensitivity. These results should be integrated with recent findings on phonological processing and speech rate. Future research should attempt to replicate these results in a larger sample of participants with longer speech samples and varied elicitation tasks. Supplemental Materials https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.5558107

Irrelevant Words Trigger an Attentional Blink

It has been argued that salient distractor items displayed during rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) trigger an attentional blink (AB) when they share features with the target item. Here we demonstrate that salient distractor words induce an AB independently of feature overlap with the target. In two experiments a color-highlighted irrelevant word preceded a target by a variable lag in an RSVP series of false font strings. Target identification was reduced at short relative to long temporal lags between the distractor word and the target, irrespective of feature sharing with the distractor word. When the target shared features with the distractor word, target accuracy was reduced across all lags. Accordingly, feature sharing between the distractor word and the target did not amplify the AB, but had an additive effect on attentional capture by the distractor word.