Discourse fluency modulates spoken word recognition in monolingual and L2 speakers

We investigated whether fluent language production is associated with greater skill in resolving lexical competition during spoken word recognition and ignoring irrelevant information in non-linguistic tasks. Native English monolinguals and native English L2 learners, who varied on measures of discourse/verbal fluency and cognitive control, identified spoken English words from dense (e.g., BAG) and sparse (e.g., BALL) phonological neighborhoods in moderate noise. Participants were slower in recognizing spoken words from denser neighborhoods. The inhibitory effect of phonological neighborhood density was smaller for English monolinguals and L2 learners with higher speech production fluency, but was unrelated to cognitive control as indexed by performance on the Simon task. Converging evidence from within-language effects in monolinguals and cross-language effects in L2 learners suggests that fluent language production involves a competitive selection process that may not engage all domain-general control mechanisms. Results suggest that language experience may capture individual variation in lexical competition resolution.

Lexical Competition Effects in Aphasia

<p>Some aphasic patients show single word production deficits in some situations where object naming is required (e.g., they perform well when objects are presented in unrelated groups (e.g., Cat, Fork, Bread...), but deteriorate when the same items are presented in semantically related groups (e.g., Cat, Cow, Dog...)) (see Wilshire & McCarthy, 2002). We investigated whether context-sensitive single-word production impairments reflect an impaired ability to resolve lexical competition. Three groups of participants (non-fluent aphasics, fluent aphasics, and older controls) completed four tasks that manipulated lexical competition: 1) A category exemplar task, where a high competition condition involved generating items from broad categories (e.g., Animals: "Cat. Dog" etc.), and a low competition condition involved generating items from narrow categories (e.g., Pets: Cat. Dog" etc); 2) A verb generation task, where participants were presented with objects and were required to generate related verbs. The high competition objects were related to a range of verbs (e.g., Penny: Spend"/"Pay"/"Buy" etc), and the low competition objects were related to one dominant verb (e.g., Scissors: "Cut"); 3) A name agreement task where a high competition condition involved naming low name agreement objects (e.g., Artist/Painter), and a low competition condition involved naming of high name agreement objects (e.g., Anchor), and; 4) A sentence completion task, where extrinsic competition was introduced via presentation of auditory distracters. The low competition distracters did not make sense (e.g., Barry wisely chose to pay the RANGE: "Bill"/"Cashier" etc), whereas the high competition distracters did (e.g., Barry wisely chose to pay the FINE: "Bill"/Cashier" etc). Our first hypothesis was that all participants would show high competition costs in increased response latencies and/or decreased accuracy. At the group level, this hypothesis was supported in all four tasks. At the individual level, there was mixed support as some participants showed predicted effects on the verb generation, name agreement, and sentence completion tasks. The second hypothesis was that exaggerated competition costs would occur in some or all non-fluent aphasics. At the group level this hypothesis was not clearly supported on any task. At the individual level there was mixed support, with some indications that non-fluents may be more likely to show significant competition effects than fluents. The third hypothesis was that non-fluent aphasics with relatively well preserved single word production but relatively impaired sentence production may be most likely to show exaggerated lexical competition effects. There was little support for this hypothesis. It was concluded that the data do not support the hypothesis that context-sensitive single-word production impairments are symptomatic of an impaired ability to resolve lexical competition. However, we have gained information on how heterogeneous aphasics perform on tasks that manipulate lexical competition, and we have gained some insights that may direct future research down a path towards more informative results, and increased knowledge on the complex process of speech production.</p>

The development of lexical competition in written- and spoken-word competition

Efficient word recognition depends on the ability to overcome competition from overlapping words. The nature of the overlap depends on the input modality: spoken words have temporal overlap from other words that share phonemes in the same positions, whereas written words have spatial overlap from other words with letters in the same places. It is unclear how these differences in input format affect the ability to recognize a word and the types of competitors that become active while doing so. This study investigates word recognition in both modalities in children between 7 and 15. Children complete a visual-world paradigm eye-tracking task that measures competition from words with several types of overlap, using identical word lists between modalities. Results showed correlated developmental changes in the speed of target recognition in both modalities. Additionally, developmental changes were seen in the efficiency of competitor suppression for some competitor types in the spoken modality. These data reveal some developmental continuity in the process of word recognition independent of modality, but also some instances of independence in how competitors are activated. Stimuli, data and analyses from this project are available at: https://osf.io/eav72

Lexical Competition Effects in Aphasia

<p>Some aphasic patients show single word production deficits in some situations where object naming is required (e.g., they perform well when objects are presented in unrelated groups (e.g., Cat, Fork, Bread...), but deteriorate when the same items are presented in semantically related groups (e.g., Cat, Cow, Dog...)) (see Wilshire & McCarthy, 2002). We investigated whether context-sensitive single-word production impairments reflect an impaired ability to resolve lexical competition. Three groups of participants (non-fluent aphasics, fluent aphasics, and older controls) completed four tasks that manipulated lexical competition: 1) A category exemplar task, where a high competition condition involved generating items from broad categories (e.g., Animals: "Cat. Dog" etc.), and a low competition condition involved generating items from narrow categories (e.g., Pets: Cat. Dog" etc); 2) A verb generation task, where participants were presented with objects and were required to generate related verbs. The high competition objects were related to a range of verbs (e.g., Penny: Spend"/"Pay"/"Buy" etc), and the low competition objects were related to one dominant verb (e.g., Scissors: "Cut"); 3) A name agreement task where a high competition condition involved naming low name agreement objects (e.g., Artist/Painter), and a low competition condition involved naming of high name agreement objects (e.g., Anchor), and; 4) A sentence completion task, where extrinsic competition was introduced via presentation of auditory distracters. The low competition distracters did not make sense (e.g., Barry wisely chose to pay the RANGE: "Bill"/"Cashier" etc), whereas the high competition distracters did (e.g., Barry wisely chose to pay the FINE: "Bill"/Cashier" etc). Our first hypothesis was that all participants would show high competition costs in increased response latencies and/or decreased accuracy. At the group level, this hypothesis was supported in all four tasks. At the individual level, there was mixed support as some participants showed predicted effects on the verb generation, name agreement, and sentence completion tasks. The second hypothesis was that exaggerated competition costs would occur in some or all non-fluent aphasics. At the group level this hypothesis was not clearly supported on any task. At the individual level there was mixed support, with some indications that non-fluents may be more likely to show significant competition effects than fluents. The third hypothesis was that non-fluent aphasics with relatively well preserved single word production but relatively impaired sentence production may be most likely to show exaggerated lexical competition effects. There was little support for this hypothesis. It was concluded that the data do not support the hypothesis that context-sensitive single-word production impairments are symptomatic of an impaired ability to resolve lexical competition. However, we have gained information on how heterogeneous aphasics perform on tasks that manipulate lexical competition, and we have gained some insights that may direct future research down a path towards more informative results, and increased knowledge on the complex process of speech production.</p>

EXPRESS: Do both WRAP and TRAP inhibit the recognition of the French word DRAP? Impact of orthographic markedness on cross-language orthographic priming

We investigated lexical and sub-lexical orthographic coding in bilingual visual word recognition by examining interactions between orthographic neighborhood and markedness. In three experiments, French/English bilinguals performed a masked lexical decision task in French (L1) in which orthographically related prime words could be either marked or unmarked English (L2) words, compared to unrelated primes (e.g., wrap, trap, gift – DRAP, meaning sheet). The results yielded an overall inhibition priming effect, which was unexpectedly more robust in the marked condition than in the unmarked one. This result highlights the need to integrate both lexical competition and orthographic markedness in bilingual models such as BIA/+ and determine how the latter may modulate lexical processing in bilinguals.

Turn the music: Do readers predict distant verb particles in German?

Language comprehension requires readers to track relationships between words, such as between the verb and particle "turn down". In German, "turn" and "down" may be separated by large amounts of material, delaying full interpretation of the verb. Readers may therefore predict the particle. However, evidence for lexical predictions often concerns only adjacent or near-adjacent words. We present two ERP experiments in which readers could be either highly certain about a long-distance particle’s identity, or where competing particles created uncertainty. Assuming readers were more likely to predict the particle when certainty was high, we measured the cost of violating this prediction. Despite a large sample size and closely controlled lexical competition, it was surprisingly unclear whether certainty affected the N400 and PNP. Although we find no answer to the question of long-distance predictions, the findings are consistent with negative predictions of currentN400 and PNP accounts in a novel construction.