The Experts below are selected from a list of 44586 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Gabriella Vigliocco - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
how does emotional content affect Lexical Processing
Cognition & Emotion, 2014Co-Authors: David Vinson, Marta Ponari, Gabriella ViglioccoAbstract:Even single words in isolation can evoke emotional reactions, but the mechanisms by which emotion is involved in automatic Lexical Processing are unclear. Previous studies using extremely similar materials and methods have yielded apparently incompatible patterns of results. In much previous work, however, words' emotional content is entangled with other non-emotional characteristics such as frequency of occurrence, familiarity and age of acquisition, all of which have potential consequences for Lexical Processing themselves. In the present study, the authors compare different models of emotion using the British Lexicon Project, a large-scale freely available Lexical decision database. After controlling for the potentially confounding effects of non-emotional variables, a variety of statistical approaches revealed that emotional words, whether positive or negative, are processed faster than neutral words. This effect appears to be categorical rather than graded; is not modulated by emotional arousal; and is not limited to words explicitly referring to emotions. The authors suggest that emotional connotations facilitate Processing due to the grounding of words' meanings in emotional experience.
-
how does emotional content affect Lexical Processing
Cognitive Science, 2013Co-Authors: David Vinson, Marta Ponari, Gabriella ViglioccoAbstract:How does emotional content affect Lexical Processing? David Vinson, Marta Ponari & Gabriella Vigliocco {d.vinson, m.ponari, g.vigliocco}@ucl.ac.uk Cognitive, Perceptual and Brain Sciences, University College London Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT United Kingdom Abstract It is now generally accepted that words’ emotional content plays a role in Lexical Processing, but the literature offers incompatible findings concerning what this role may be. Here we use a large sample of Lexical decision data (British Lexicon Project, Keuleers et al., 2012) and we carry out a series of analyses differing in the way emotional variables are treated. A variety of statistical approaches yielded common conclusions: when confounding variables are taken into account, emotional words, whether positive or negative, are processed faster than neutral words. This effect is categorical rather than graded; is not modulated by emotional arousal; and is not limited to words explicitly referring to emotions. We discuss this in terms of internally grounding words’ meanings in emotional experience, akin to the manner in which concepts may be grounded in perception and action. Keywords: emotion; valence; Lexical decision. Introduction In mainstream Lexical Processing studies, emotional content has been largely ignored, whether considered irrelevant to the core meanings of words, or as properties of narrowly defined sets of words explicitly referring to emotions (e.g. Altarriba & Bauer, 2004). Recently, however, a number of studies of Lexical Processing effectively demonstrated that emotional content plays a role even in shallow tasks involving single words such as Lexical decision (e.g. Estes & Adelman 2008a,b; Kousta, Vinson & Vigliocco, 2009; Kousta, et al., 2011; Larsen, et al., 2008). As a result, language Processing researchers have begun to acknowledge the interplay between emotion and language Processing systems, discussing emotional effects in language Processing as due to the embodied nature of linguistic representations (e.g. Kousta et al., 2011; Moseley, et al., 2012; Vigliocco et al., 2009), just as researchers in other domains of cognition have posited embodied emotional effects (e.g. Pistoia et al., 2010). However, precisely which mechanisms are involved in emotional Processing is unclear at the present. This is because different studies of Lexical Processing have found different and apparently incompatible results even when the same task (e.g., Lexical decision) is used. It has been shown that previously reported effects of emotional valence (i.e. numeric ratings indicating the extent to which a word is positive, neutral or negative) can change dramatically once confounding variables such as length, frequency and orthographic neighbourhood size are taken into account (Larsen, Mercer & Balota, 2006). However, even after controlling for non-emotional variables, results are conflicting. Estes & Adelman (2008a,b) and Larsen et al (2008) reported slower Lexical decision reaction times (RTs) for negative than positive words. This has been interpreted in terms of attentional vigilance: heightened and/or extended attention to negative stimuli (e.g. Fox et al., 2001; Pratto & John, 1991) which would slow any decision (such as Lexical decisions) on other aspects of the stimuli. In contrast, Kousta et al. (2009) found a Processing advantage for both negative and positive over neutral words, which they explain in terms of greater motivational relevance of emotionally loaded stimuli (e.g. Lang, Bradley & Cuthbert, 1997). Kousta et al argued that the discrepancy in findings was due to the relative lack of neutral words in the data sets tested previously, but especially due to the lack of control of potentially confounding variables, such as ratings of familiarity and age of acquisition (AoA) in previous studies. In addition, Larsen et al (2008) found that the effect of valence was modulated by the arousal of words such that a negative disadvantage was present for medium-low arousing words, but no effect was observed for highly arousing negative words, Estes and Adelman (2008b) argued for a far more constrained role of arousal, and Kousta et al. (2009) argued that valence effects could not be explained in terms of arousal (although these authors did not explicitly test for valence × arousal interactions). All of these previous studies were conducted using Lexical decision data from a single source: the English Lexicon Project (ELP, Balota et al., 2007), so in addition to questions about the different assumptions and approaches taken by previous authors, one may also wonder about the extent to which the findings may be related to quirks of that particular item set. Here we take advantage of an entirely independently obtained large-scale set of Lexical decision data (British Lexicon Project (BLP): Keuleers, Lacey, Rastle & Brysbaert, 2012), to try and resolve these questions. Our analyses compare models based on different a priori theoretical assumptions concerning the role of valence in word Processing, controlling non-emotional variables known to affect Lexical decision RTs. We begin by fitting baseline models in which all the non-emotional predictors mentioned above are taken into account, then add specific terms embedding different assumptions about the role of valence. Such an approach is essential in order to test theoretical accounts of emotion effects in Lexical Processing. After assessing how well different measures of valence perform after taking baseline variables into account, we move on to evaluating the role of other aspects of emotional content besides just valence, assessing the extent to which valence effects may instead be explained or modulated in terms of arousal. Finally, we test whether the effects of emotional valence differ for words specifically referring to emotional experience, vs. words that are only valenced.
-
The link between form and meaning in American Sign Language: Lexical Processing effects
2009Co-Authors: Robin L. Thompson, David P. Vinson, Gabriella ViglioccoAbstract:Signed languages exploit iconicity (the transparent relationship between meaning and form) to a greater extent than spoken languages. where it is largely limited to onomatopoeia. In a picture–sign matching experiment measuring reaction times, the authors examined the potential advantage of iconicity both for 1st- and 2nd-language learners of American Sign Language (ASL). The results show that native ASL signers are faster to respond when a specific property iconically represented in a sign is made salient in the corresponding picture, thus providing evidence that a closer mapping between meaning and form can aid in Lexical retrieval. While late 2nd-language learners appear to use iconicity as an aid to learning sign (R. Campbell, P. Martin, & T. White, 1992), they did not show the same facilitation effect as native ASL signers, suggesting that the task tapped into more automatic language processes. Overall, the findings suggest that completely arbitrary mappings between meaning and form may not be more advantageous in language and that, rather, arbitrariness may simply be an accident of modality
Jan Edwards - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
coarticulation facilitates Lexical Processing for toddlers with autism
Cognition, 2021Co-Authors: Ron Pomper, Susan Ellis Weismer, Jenny R Saffran, Jan EdwardsAbstract:Abstract Many children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are delayed in learning language. The mechanisms underlying these delays are not well understood but may involve differences in how children process language. In the current experiment, we compared how 3- to 4-year-old children with ASD (n = 58) and 2- to 3-year-old children who are typically developing (TD, n = 44) use phonological information to incrementally process speech. Children saw pictures of objects displayed on a screen and heard sentences labeling one of the objects (e.g., Find the ball). For some sentences, the determiner the contained coarticulatory information about the onset of the target word. For other sentences, the determiner the did not contain any coarticulatory information. Children were faster to fixate the target object for sentences with vs. without coarticulation. This effect of coarticulation was the same for children with ASD compared to their TD peers. When controlling for group differences in receptive language ability, the effect of coarticulation was stronger for children with ASD compared to their TD peers. These results suggest that phonological Processing is an area of relative strength for children with ASD.
-
Using language input and Lexical Processing to predict vocabulary size
Developmental science, 2018Co-Authors: Tristan Mahr, Jan EdwardsAbstract:Children learn words by listening to caregivers, and the quantity and quality of early language input predict later language development. Recent research suggests that word recognition efficiency may influence the relationship between input and vocabulary growth. We asked whether language input and Lexical Processing at 28-39 months predicted vocabulary size one year later in 109 preschoolers. Input was measured using adult word counts from LENA recordings. We used the visual world paradigm and measured Lexical Processing as the rate of change in proportion of looks to target. Regression analysis showed that Lexical Processing did not constrain the effect of input on vocabulary size. We also found that input and Processing were more reliable predictors of receptive than expressive vocabulary growth.
-
effects of vocabulary size on online Lexical Processing by preschoolers
Language Learning and Development, 2015Co-Authors: Franzo Law, Jan EdwardsAbstract:This study was designed to investigate the relationship between vocabulary size and the speed and accuracy of Lexical Processing in preschoolers between the ages of 30-46 months using an automatic eye tracking task based on the looking-while-listening paradigm (Fernald, Zangl, Portillo, & Marchman, 2008) and mispronunciation paradigm (White & Morgan, 2008). Children's eye gaze patterns were tracked while they looked at two pictures (one familiar object, one unfamiliar object) on a computer screen and simultaneously heard one of three kinds of auditory stimuli: correct pronunciations of the familiar object's name, one-feature mispronunciations of the familiar object's name, or a nonword. The results showed that children with larger expressive vocabularies, relative to children with smaller expressive vocabularies, were more likely to look to a familiar object upon hearing a correct pronunciation and to an unfamiliar object upon hearing a novel word. Results also showed that children with larger expressive vocabularies were more sensitive to mispronunciations; they were more likely to look toward the unfamiliar object rather than the familiar object upon hearing a one-feature mispronunciation of a familiar object-name. These results suggest that children with smaller vocabularies, relative to their larger-vocabulary age peers, are at a disadvantage for learning new words, as well as for Processing familiar words.
Penny M Pexman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
sensitivity to emotion information in children s Lexical Processing
Cognition, 2019Co-Authors: Tatiana Lund, David M Sidhu, Penny M PexmanAbstract:Abstract We tested predictions of multiple representation accounts of conceptual Processing, including the proposal that emotion information may provide a bootstrapping mechanism for vocabulary acquisition. We investigated the influence of word valence on children’s Lexical Processing, presenting 40 positive words, 40 neutral words, and 40 negative words in an auditory Lexical decision task (ALDT), along with 120 nonwords. We tested 99 children across three age groups: 5, 6, or 7 years. There were no significant effects of valence on the ALDT responses of 5-year-old children. The 6-year-old children, however, were faster to respond to negative words than to neutral words and, for more abstract words, faster to respond to positive words than to neutral words. The 7-year-old children were faster for positive words than for neutral words, regardless of concreteness. As such, children showed sensitivity to word valence in Lexical Processing, at a younger age than had been established in previous research. In addition, children’s language skills were related to their improved Processing of more abstract neutral words between 6 and 7 years of age. These results are consistent with multimodal accounts of word meaning and Lexical development.
-
development of embodied word meanings sensorimotor effects in children s Lexical Processing
Frontiers in Psychology, 2016Co-Authors: Michelle Inkster, Michele Wellsby, Ellen Lloyd, Penny M PexmanAbstract:Previous research showed an effect of words’ rated body-object interaction (BOI) in children’s visual word naming performance, but only in children 8 years of age or older (Wellsby & Pexman, 2014a). In that study, however, BOI was established using adult ratings. Here we collected ratings from a group of parents for children’s body-object interaction experience (child-BOI). We examined effects of words’ child-BOI and also words’ imageability on children’s responses in an auditory word naming task, which is suited to the Lexical Processing skills of younger children. We tested a group of 54 children aged 6-7 years and a comparison group of 25 adults. Results showed significant effects of both imageability and child-BOI on children’s auditory naming latencies. These results provide evidence that children younger than 8 years of age have richer semantic representations for high imageability and high child-BOI words, consistent with an embodied account of word meaning.
-
effects of emotional and sensorimotor knowledge in semantic Processing of concrete and abstract nouns
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2012Co-Authors: Ian P Newcombe, Cale Campbell, Paul D Siakaluk, Penny M PexmanAbstract:There is much empirical evidence that words’ relative imageability and body-object interaction (BOI) facilitate Lexical Processing for concrete nouns (e.g., Bennett, Burnett, Siakaluk, & Pexman, 2011). These findings are consistent with a grounded cognition framework (e.g., Barsalou, 2008), in which sensorimotor knowledge is integral to Lexical Processing. In the present study, we examined whether Lexical Processing is also sensitive to the dimension of emotional experience (i.e., the ease with which words evoke emotional experience), which is also derived from a grounded cognition framework. We examined the effects of emotional experience, imageability, and BOI in semantic categorization for concrete and abstract nouns. Our results indicate that for concrete nouns, emotional experience was associated with less accurate categorization, whereas imageability and BOI were associated with faster and more accurate categorization. For abstract nouns, emotional experience was associated with faster and more accurate categorization, whereas BOI was associated with slower and less accurate categorization. This pattern of results was observed even with many other Lexical and semantic dimensions statistically controlled. These findings are consistent with Vigliocco, Meteyard, Andrews, and Kousta’s (2009) theory of semantic representation, which states that emotional knowledge underlies meanings for abstract concepts, whereas sensorimotor knowledge underlies meanings for concrete concepts.
Eileen Haebig - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Lexical Processing in school age children with autism spectrum disorder and children with specific language impairment the role of semantics
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 2015Co-Authors: Eileen Haebig, Margarita Kaushanskaya, Susan Ellis WeismerAbstract:Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and specific language impairment (SLI) often have immature Lexical-semantic knowledge; however, the organization of Lexical-semantic knowledge is poorly understood. This study examined Lexical Processing in school-age children with ASD, SLI, and typical development, who were matched on receptive vocabulary. Children completed a Lexical decision task, involving words with high and low semantic network sizes and nonwords. Children also completed nonverbal updating and shifting tasks. Children responded more accurately to words from high than from low semantic networks; however, follow-up analyses identified weaker semantic network effects in the SLI group. Additionally, updating and shifting abilities predicted Lexical Processing, demonstrating similarity in the mechanisms which underlie semantic Processing in children with ASD, SLI, and typical development.
Susan Ellis Weismer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
coarticulation facilitates Lexical Processing for toddlers with autism
Cognition, 2021Co-Authors: Ron Pomper, Susan Ellis Weismer, Jenny R Saffran, Jan EdwardsAbstract:Abstract Many children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are delayed in learning language. The mechanisms underlying these delays are not well understood but may involve differences in how children process language. In the current experiment, we compared how 3- to 4-year-old children with ASD (n = 58) and 2- to 3-year-old children who are typically developing (TD, n = 44) use phonological information to incrementally process speech. Children saw pictures of objects displayed on a screen and heard sentences labeling one of the objects (e.g., Find the ball). For some sentences, the determiner the contained coarticulatory information about the onset of the target word. For other sentences, the determiner the did not contain any coarticulatory information. Children were faster to fixate the target object for sentences with vs. without coarticulation. This effect of coarticulation was the same for children with ASD compared to their TD peers. When controlling for group differences in receptive language ability, the effect of coarticulation was stronger for children with ASD compared to their TD peers. These results suggest that phonological Processing is an area of relative strength for children with ASD.
-
Lexical Processing in school age children with autism spectrum disorder and children with specific language impairment the role of semantics
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 2015Co-Authors: Eileen Haebig, Margarita Kaushanskaya, Susan Ellis WeismerAbstract:Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and specific language impairment (SLI) often have immature Lexical-semantic knowledge; however, the organization of Lexical-semantic knowledge is poorly understood. This study examined Lexical Processing in school-age children with ASD, SLI, and typical development, who were matched on receptive vocabulary. Children completed a Lexical decision task, involving words with high and low semantic network sizes and nonwords. Children also completed nonverbal updating and shifting tasks. Children responded more accurately to words from high than from low semantic networks; however, follow-up analyses identified weaker semantic network effects in the SLI group. Additionally, updating and shifting abilities predicted Lexical Processing, demonstrating similarity in the mechanisms which underlie semantic Processing in children with ASD, SLI, and typical development.
