The Experts below are selected from a list of 117159 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Tatjana A Nazir - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Action relevance in Linguistic Context drives word-induced motor activity.
Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2014Co-Authors: Pia Aravena, Mélody Courson, Victor Frak, Anne Cheylus, Yves Paulignan, Viviane Deprez, Tatjana A NazirAbstract:Many neurocognitive studies on the role of motor structures in action-language processing have implicitly adopted a “dictionary-like” framework within which lexical meaning is constructed on the basis of an invariant set of semantic features. The debate has thus been centered on the question of whether motor activation is an integral part of the lexical semantics (embodied theories) or the result of a post-lexical construction of a situation model (disembodied theories). However, research in psychoLinguistics show that lexical semantic processing and Context-dependent meaning construction are narrowly integrated. An understanding of the role of motor structures in action-language processing might thus be better achieved by focusing on the Linguistic Contexts under which such structures are recruited. Here, we therefore analyzed online modulations of grip force while subjects listened to target words embedded in different Linguistic Contexts. When the target word was a hand action verb and when the sentence focused on that action an early increase of grip force was observed. No comparable increase was detected when the same word occurred in a Context that shifted the focus towards the agent’s mental state. There mere presence of an action word is thus not sufficient to trigger motor activation. Moreover, when the Linguistic Context set up a strong expectation for a hand action, a grip force increase was observed even when the tested word was a pseudo-verb. The presence of a known action word is thus not required to trigger motor activation. Importantly, however, the same Linguistic Contexts that sufficed to trigger motor activation with pseudo-verbs failed to trigger motor activation when the target words were verbs with no motor action reference. We argue that motor structure activation is part of a dynamic process that integrates the lexical meaning potential of a term and the construction of a situation model.
-
Action relevance in Linguistic Context drives word-induced motor activity.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2014Co-Authors: Pia Aravena, Mélody Courson, Victor Frak, Anne Cheylus, Yves Paulignan, Viviane Deprez, Tatjana A NazirAbstract:Many neurocognitive studies on the role of motor structures in action-language processing have implicitly adopted a "dictionary-like" framework within which lexical meaning is constructed on the basis of an invariant set of semantic features. The debate has thus been centered on the question of whether motor activation is an integral part of the lexical semantics (embodied theories) or the result of a post-lexical construction of a situation model (disembodied theories). However, research in psychoLinguistics show that lexical semantic processing and Context-dependent meaning construction are narrowly integrated. An understanding of the role of motor structures in action-language processing might thus be better achieved by focusing on the Linguistic Contexts under which such structures are recruited. Here, we therefore analyzed online modulations of grip force while subjects listened to target words embedded in different Linguistic Contexts. When the target word was a hand action verb and when the sentence focused on that action (John signs the contract) an early increase of grip force was observed. No comparable increase was detected when the same word occurred in a Context that shifted the focus toward the agent's mental state (John wants to sign the contract). There mere presence of an action word is thus not sufficient to trigger motor activation. Moreover, when the Linguistic Context set up a strong expectation for a hand action, a grip force increase was observed even when the tested word was a pseudo-verb. The presence of a known action word is thus not required to trigger motor activation. Importantly, however, the same Linguistic Contexts that sufficed to trigger motor activation with pseudo-verbs failed to trigger motor activation when the target words were verbs with no motor action reference. Context is thus not by itself sufficient to supersede an "incompatible" word meaning. We argue that motor structure activation is part of a dynamic process that integrates the lexical meaning potential of a term and the Context in the online construction of a situation model, which is a crucial process for fluent and efficient online language comprehension.
Arthur Wingfield - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Linguistic Context Versus Semantic Competition in Word Recognition by Younger and Older Adults With Cochlear Implants.
Ear and hearing, 2018Co-Authors: Nicole M. Amichetti, Eriko Atagi, Ying-yee Kong, Arthur WingfieldAbstract:Objectives The increasing numbers of older adults now receiving cochlear implants raises the question of how the novel signal produced by cochlear implants may interact with cognitive aging in the recognition of words heard spoken within a Linguistic Context. The objective of this study was to pit the facilitative effects of a constraining Linguistic Context against a potential age-sensitive negative effect of response competition on effectiveness of word recognition. Design Younger (n = 8; mean age = 22.5 years) and older (n = 8; mean age = 67.5 years) adult implant recipients heard 20 target words as the final words in sentences that manipulated the target word's probability of occurrence within the sentence Context. Data from published norms were also used to measure response entropy, calculated as the total number of different responses and the probability distribution of the responses suggested by the sentence Context. Sentence-final words were presented to participants using a word-onset gating paradigm, in which a target word was presented with increasing amounts of its onset duration in 50 msec increments until the word was correctly identified. Results Results showed that for both younger and older adult implant users, the amount of word-onset information needed for correct recognition of sentence-final words was inversely proportional to their likelihood of occurrence within the sentence Context, with older adults gaining differential advantage from the Contextual constraints offered by a sentence Context. On the negative side, older adults' word recognition was differentially hampered by high response entropy, with this effect being driven primarily by the number of competing responses that might also fit the sentence Context. Conclusions Consistent with previous research with normal-hearing younger and older adults, the present results showed older adult implant users' recognition of spoken words to be highly sensitive to Linguistic Context. This sensitivity, however, also resulted in a greater degree of interference from other words that might also be activated by the Context, with negative effects on ease of word recognition. These results are consistent with an age-related inhibition deficit extending to the domain of semantic constraints on word recognition.
-
word recognition within a Linguistic Context effects of age hearing acuity verbal ability and cognitive function
Ear and Hearing, 2012Co-Authors: Jonathan I Benichov, Arthur WingfieldAbstract:Objective Participants in traditional studies of the effects of Context on spoken word recognition have been university undergraduates. When older adults have been included, they have typically been matched with these young adults for verbal ability or years of education. Although this may be a good strategy for eliminating confounding variables, it is not clear how results of these studies may extend to the general population of young and older adults. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of adult age, hearing acuity, verbal ability and cognitive function on the use of Linguistic Context in spoken word recognition.
Pia Aravena - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Action relevance in Linguistic Context drives word-induced motor activity.
Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2014Co-Authors: Pia Aravena, Mélody Courson, Victor Frak, Anne Cheylus, Yves Paulignan, Viviane Deprez, Tatjana A NazirAbstract:Many neurocognitive studies on the role of motor structures in action-language processing have implicitly adopted a “dictionary-like” framework within which lexical meaning is constructed on the basis of an invariant set of semantic features. The debate has thus been centered on the question of whether motor activation is an integral part of the lexical semantics (embodied theories) or the result of a post-lexical construction of a situation model (disembodied theories). However, research in psychoLinguistics show that lexical semantic processing and Context-dependent meaning construction are narrowly integrated. An understanding of the role of motor structures in action-language processing might thus be better achieved by focusing on the Linguistic Contexts under which such structures are recruited. Here, we therefore analyzed online modulations of grip force while subjects listened to target words embedded in different Linguistic Contexts. When the target word was a hand action verb and when the sentence focused on that action an early increase of grip force was observed. No comparable increase was detected when the same word occurred in a Context that shifted the focus towards the agent’s mental state. There mere presence of an action word is thus not sufficient to trigger motor activation. Moreover, when the Linguistic Context set up a strong expectation for a hand action, a grip force increase was observed even when the tested word was a pseudo-verb. The presence of a known action word is thus not required to trigger motor activation. Importantly, however, the same Linguistic Contexts that sufficed to trigger motor activation with pseudo-verbs failed to trigger motor activation when the target words were verbs with no motor action reference. We argue that motor structure activation is part of a dynamic process that integrates the lexical meaning potential of a term and the construction of a situation model.
-
Action relevance in Linguistic Context drives word-induced motor activity.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2014Co-Authors: Pia Aravena, Mélody Courson, Victor Frak, Anne Cheylus, Yves Paulignan, Viviane Deprez, Tatjana A NazirAbstract:Many neurocognitive studies on the role of motor structures in action-language processing have implicitly adopted a "dictionary-like" framework within which lexical meaning is constructed on the basis of an invariant set of semantic features. The debate has thus been centered on the question of whether motor activation is an integral part of the lexical semantics (embodied theories) or the result of a post-lexical construction of a situation model (disembodied theories). However, research in psychoLinguistics show that lexical semantic processing and Context-dependent meaning construction are narrowly integrated. An understanding of the role of motor structures in action-language processing might thus be better achieved by focusing on the Linguistic Contexts under which such structures are recruited. Here, we therefore analyzed online modulations of grip force while subjects listened to target words embedded in different Linguistic Contexts. When the target word was a hand action verb and when the sentence focused on that action (John signs the contract) an early increase of grip force was observed. No comparable increase was detected when the same word occurred in a Context that shifted the focus toward the agent's mental state (John wants to sign the contract). There mere presence of an action word is thus not sufficient to trigger motor activation. Moreover, when the Linguistic Context set up a strong expectation for a hand action, a grip force increase was observed even when the tested word was a pseudo-verb. The presence of a known action word is thus not required to trigger motor activation. Importantly, however, the same Linguistic Contexts that sufficed to trigger motor activation with pseudo-verbs failed to trigger motor activation when the target words were verbs with no motor action reference. Context is thus not by itself sufficient to supersede an "incompatible" word meaning. We argue that motor structure activation is part of a dynamic process that integrates the lexical meaning potential of a term and the Context in the online construction of a situation model, which is a crucial process for fluent and efficient online language comprehension.
Mandy J. Maguire - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
N400 Response Indexes Word Learning from Linguistic Context in Children
Language Learning and Development, 2017Co-Authors: Alyson D. Abel, Julie M. Schneider, Mandy J. MaguireAbstract:Word learning from Linguistic Context is essential for vocabulary growth from grade school onward; however, little is known about the mechanisms underlying successful word learning in children. Cur...
Janet G. Van Hell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Words only go so far: Linguistic Context affects bilingual word processing
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2018Co-Authors: Janet G. Van HellAbstract:In their keynote paper, Dijkstra, Wahl, Buytenhuijs, van Halem, Al-jibouri, de Korte, and Rekke (2018) present a computational model of bilingual word recognition and translation, Multilink, that integrates and further refines the architecture and processing principles of two influential models of bilingual word processing: the Bilingual Activation Model (BIA/BIA+) and the Revised Hierarchical model (RHM). Unlike the earlier models, Multilink has been implemented as a computational model so its design principles and assumptions can be compared with human processing data in simulation studies – which is an important step forward in model development and refinement. But Multilink also leaves behind an important theoretical advancement that was touched upon in extending BIA to BIA+ (Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 2002): how Linguistic Context influences word processing. In their presentation of BIA+, Dijkstra and Van Heuven (2002) hypothesized that syntactic and semantic aspects of sentence Context may affect the word identification system. Theoretically, this was an important step forward, as none of the bilingual word processing models (and few monolingual word processing models, for that matter) had incorporated Linguistic Context, and at that time only a handful of empirical studies had examined how Linguistic Context affects bilingual word processing. However, in the past 15 years a significant body of empirical work has been published that examines how semantic and syntactic information in sentences impacts word processing in bilinguals. These important insights are not incorporated in the Multilink model.
-
Bilingual word recognition beyond orthography: On meaning, Linguistic Context, and individual differences
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2002Co-Authors: Janet G. Van HellAbstract:Central questions in psychoLinguistic studies on bilingualism are how bilinguals access words in their two languages, and how they control their language systems and solve the problem of cross-language competition. In their excellent paper “The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision”, Dijkstra and Van Heuven expound their BIA+ model on bilingual word recognition. BIA+ builds on its predecessor BIA, one of the first connectionist models on bilingual word recognition. BIA+ preserves one of BIA's crucial assumptions, namely that the bilingual lexicon is integrated across languages and is accessed in a language non-selective way, an assumption that is supported in many empirical studies and that is now widely accepted in the bilingual literature. Compared to the original BIA model, the BIA+ architecture is further developed (in fact, much more so than the subtle ‘plus’ denotes). BIA+ now includes orthographic, as well as phonological and semantic representations in the word identification system, and a distinction is made between a word identification system and a task/decision system. This latter extension resembles the language task schemas in Green's (1998) Inhibitory Control model. Dijkstra and Van Heuven also distinguish between effects of Linguistic and non-Linguistic Context on performance: Linguistic Context effects, that arise from lexical, syntactic and semantic sources, are assumed to affect the activity in the word identification system, whereas non-Linguistic effects, that can arise from instruction, task demands or participant expectancies, are assumed to affect the task/decision system.