ParappaTheRapper
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,390
...
Last edited:
-
✍️ WORDS ✍️
Welcome Guest!
-
-
Words Moderators: Mysterier
Word Superiority Effect, Priming, and other Cognitive Psyc Effects on Language
- Thread starter ParappaTheRapper
- Start date
JackiePeyton
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2010
- Messages
- 7,844
One central issue in cognitive psychology concerns how the human brain stores and accesses conceptual representations of objects in response to both pictures and words. Two general classes of models have been proposed. Some researchers have argued for a multiple semantic system model, asserting that the visual and verbal input modalities have separate conceptual representations (e.g., Paivio, 1986, 1991; Shallice, 1988). For example, Paivio’s dual coding theory posits the “imagen” system for picture processing and the “logogen” system for word processing. These systems can communicate with another but operate differently and have their own organization and processing parameters. Others have argued for a single amodal semantic system model, claiming that all processing routes converge on a single set of conceptual representations, common to both modalities (Caramazza, Hillis, Rapp & Romani, 1990). These two types of accounts make different predictions about the pattern of results that should be obtained when one compares picture and word processing and looks for interactions between them. The multiple semantic system model predicts that picture and word processing should be processed differently, and that interactions across modalities should be delayed and weak compared to within-modality interactions. In contrast, the single amodal semantic system model predicts that pictures and words will be processed similarly and there should be no differences in facilitation or interference between within and across-modality interactions. Behavioral studies in both normal and neuropsychological participants have produced a large amount of data on this topic (Job & Tenconi, 2002; Lloyd-Jones & Humphreys, 1997; Seifert, 1997; Snodgrass & McCullough, 1986; Vitkovitch, Cooper-Pye & Leadbetter, 2006). However, most findings can be interpreted as supporting either model, and thus no consensus has been reached.
2Numerous studies in cognitive psychology literature have also shown that object processing varies as a function of semantic category. Studies of category-specific effects have become increasingly important in discovering the organization of semantic memory (e.g., Warrington & McCarthy, 1994). This field of research originated in neuropsychological studies with brain-damaged patients. Most reports of category-specific deficits describe patients with impaired recognition of biological (e.g., animals, fruits) relative to man made objects (e.g., furniture, tools), while the opposite pattern is reported much less frequently (for reviews, see Capitani, Laiacona, Mahon & Caramazza, 2003; Laws, 2005). While some accounts of category-specific deficits have focused on explanations pertaining to semantics (Warrington & McCarthy, 1987), an increasing number of accounts have emphasized that category-specific deficits for biological objects may arise following damage to pre-semantic stages of visual object recognition (Gerlach, Law & Paulson, 2004; Humphreys & Forde, 2001; Humphreys, Riddoch & Quinlan, 1988; Lloyd-Jones & Humphreys, 1997; Moore & Price, 1999). According to the visual similarity hypothesis, biological objects have similar shapes and are therefore perceptually not differentiated from each other. For that reason, biological objects are structurally similar. In contrast, man made objects have distinct shapes and, for that reason, they are considered to be structurally dissimilar. In addition, man made objects, which can be manipulated, are recognized on the basis of functional semantic knowledge. Indeed, some authors have shown that the action plays an important role in their recognition; thus, they have argued that sensorimotor experiences play a critical role in man made object processing (Chainay & Humphreys, 2002; Magnié, Besson, Poncet & Dolisi, 2003; Magnié, Ferreira, Giusiano & Poncet, 1999). Thus, it is assumed that the visual identification of structurally similar objects is more difficult than the identification of structurally dissimilar objects. Consistent with this hypothesis, it has been found that control participants make more errors and have longer reaction times when identifying biological as opposed to man made objects (Gerlach, 2001). However, the most influential studies that have been presented as evidence for category-specific effects have employed pictures. Few studies have demonstrated that category-specific deficits have implications for modality-specific organization, and their results are contradictory. Whereas some authors found that category-specific effects may only be present in the picture processing (Farah, McMullen & Meyer, 1991), others demonstrated that they can be also selectively observed in the word modality (McCarthy & Warrington, 1988). Thus, there is some evidence indicating that performance on object semantic processing differs as a function of both category-specificity and presentation modality, but the precise mechanisms underlying this phenomenon remain unknown. Another important point concerns the semantic context. Indeed, most studies of the organization of semantic memory have been conducted in a semantic context (e.g., using a semantic priming paradigm). It is not known how these factors interact in the absence of any semantic context.
3In this article, we investigate object semantic processing as a function of category when objects are presented in isolation as pictures or words (Experiment 1), and when they are preceded by a prime (Experiment 2). In order to further describe the similarities and differences between both modalities, the processing of pictures was compared with that of words in a reality decision task (Kroll & Potter, 1984). The reality decision task is an original task that mixes object and lexical decisions; it is very informative for investigating both picture and word processing. In addition, the task requires different levels of abstraction as a function of how the meaningless stimuli are constructed. In a recent investigation, Magnié et al. (2003) proposed differentiating between two kinds of meaningless stimuli: chimeric objects (i.e., stimuli constructed out of parts of two real objects of the same semantic category), and non-objects (i.e., stimuli created by mixing up the line drawings of real objects with the constraint that they were not reminiscent of any actual objects). These authors point out that chimeric objects and non-objects can be considered similar to the pseudo-words and non-words, respectively, used in a lexical decision task.
4This study had three specific goals: (i) To investigate whether the presentation modality may affect different semantic categories in different ways. According to the visual similarity hypothesis, we predicted slower decisions for pictures of biological stimuli compared with man made objects, due to the greater perceptual overlap of the former and, hence, the subjects’ less efficient access to stored structural information. For words, the predictions are less clear. However, because words are all quite visually similar, there should not be any differential similarity effect; this effect should be found in both experiments. (ii) To determine the influence of semantic priming on both picture and word processing as a function of semantic category. According to the multiple semantic system model, we predicted that different semantic priming would be found for pictures than for words, and this effect should be greater within than across modalities. In addition, we hypothesized greater priming for biological targets than for man made stimuli presented in the picture modality. (iii) To examine the processing of pseudo-items (i.e., chimeric objects vs. pseudo-words) and non-items (i.e., non-objects vs. non-words) in a reality decision task. For Experiment 1, we predicted that pseudo-items would be the most complex stimuli to process as they are created from real stimuli (i.e., real words or objects), and thus they should have the longest RTs. For experiment 2, we hypothesized that pseudo-items would be sensitive to semantic priming since partial clues may permit subjects to access semantic information (Damasio, 1990), whereas non-items would not, since they are truly meaningless. In order to allow a straightforward interpretation, the same real objects were used in both pictures and words, and the same participants performed both experiments. The presentation order of experiments was counterbalanced between subjects.
2Numerous studies in cognitive psychology literature have also shown that object processing varies as a function of semantic category. Studies of category-specific effects have become increasingly important in discovering the organization of semantic memory (e.g., Warrington & McCarthy, 1994). This field of research originated in neuropsychological studies with brain-damaged patients. Most reports of category-specific deficits describe patients with impaired recognition of biological (e.g., animals, fruits) relative to man made objects (e.g., furniture, tools), while the opposite pattern is reported much less frequently (for reviews, see Capitani, Laiacona, Mahon & Caramazza, 2003; Laws, 2005). While some accounts of category-specific deficits have focused on explanations pertaining to semantics (Warrington & McCarthy, 1987), an increasing number of accounts have emphasized that category-specific deficits for biological objects may arise following damage to pre-semantic stages of visual object recognition (Gerlach, Law & Paulson, 2004; Humphreys & Forde, 2001; Humphreys, Riddoch & Quinlan, 1988; Lloyd-Jones & Humphreys, 1997; Moore & Price, 1999). According to the visual similarity hypothesis, biological objects have similar shapes and are therefore perceptually not differentiated from each other. For that reason, biological objects are structurally similar. In contrast, man made objects have distinct shapes and, for that reason, they are considered to be structurally dissimilar. In addition, man made objects, which can be manipulated, are recognized on the basis of functional semantic knowledge. Indeed, some authors have shown that the action plays an important role in their recognition; thus, they have argued that sensorimotor experiences play a critical role in man made object processing (Chainay & Humphreys, 2002; Magnié, Besson, Poncet & Dolisi, 2003; Magnié, Ferreira, Giusiano & Poncet, 1999). Thus, it is assumed that the visual identification of structurally similar objects is more difficult than the identification of structurally dissimilar objects. Consistent with this hypothesis, it has been found that control participants make more errors and have longer reaction times when identifying biological as opposed to man made objects (Gerlach, 2001). However, the most influential studies that have been presented as evidence for category-specific effects have employed pictures. Few studies have demonstrated that category-specific deficits have implications for modality-specific organization, and their results are contradictory. Whereas some authors found that category-specific effects may only be present in the picture processing (Farah, McMullen & Meyer, 1991), others demonstrated that they can be also selectively observed in the word modality (McCarthy & Warrington, 1988). Thus, there is some evidence indicating that performance on object semantic processing differs as a function of both category-specificity and presentation modality, but the precise mechanisms underlying this phenomenon remain unknown. Another important point concerns the semantic context. Indeed, most studies of the organization of semantic memory have been conducted in a semantic context (e.g., using a semantic priming paradigm). It is not known how these factors interact in the absence of any semantic context.
3In this article, we investigate object semantic processing as a function of category when objects are presented in isolation as pictures or words (Experiment 1), and when they are preceded by a prime (Experiment 2). In order to further describe the similarities and differences between both modalities, the processing of pictures was compared with that of words in a reality decision task (Kroll & Potter, 1984). The reality decision task is an original task that mixes object and lexical decisions; it is very informative for investigating both picture and word processing. In addition, the task requires different levels of abstraction as a function of how the meaningless stimuli are constructed. In a recent investigation, Magnié et al. (2003) proposed differentiating between two kinds of meaningless stimuli: chimeric objects (i.e., stimuli constructed out of parts of two real objects of the same semantic category), and non-objects (i.e., stimuli created by mixing up the line drawings of real objects with the constraint that they were not reminiscent of any actual objects). These authors point out that chimeric objects and non-objects can be considered similar to the pseudo-words and non-words, respectively, used in a lexical decision task.
4This study had three specific goals: (i) To investigate whether the presentation modality may affect different semantic categories in different ways. According to the visual similarity hypothesis, we predicted slower decisions for pictures of biological stimuli compared with man made objects, due to the greater perceptual overlap of the former and, hence, the subjects’ less efficient access to stored structural information. For words, the predictions are less clear. However, because words are all quite visually similar, there should not be any differential similarity effect; this effect should be found in both experiments. (ii) To determine the influence of semantic priming on both picture and word processing as a function of semantic category. According to the multiple semantic system model, we predicted that different semantic priming would be found for pictures than for words, and this effect should be greater within than across modalities. In addition, we hypothesized greater priming for biological targets than for man made stimuli presented in the picture modality. (iii) To examine the processing of pseudo-items (i.e., chimeric objects vs. pseudo-words) and non-items (i.e., non-objects vs. non-words) in a reality decision task. For Experiment 1, we predicted that pseudo-items would be the most complex stimuli to process as they are created from real stimuli (i.e., real words or objects), and thus they should have the longest RTs. For experiment 2, we hypothesized that pseudo-items would be sensitive to semantic priming since partial clues may permit subjects to access semantic information (Damasio, 1990), whereas non-items would not, since they are truly meaningless. In order to allow a straightforward interpretation, the same real objects were used in both pictures and words, and the same participants performed both experiments. The presentation order of experiments was counterbalanced between subjects.