Lexical frequency effects on articulation:a comparison of picture naming and reading aloud

The present study investigated whether lexical frequency, a variable that is known to affect the time taken to utter a verbal response, may also influence articulation. Pairs of words that differed in terms of their relative frequency, but were matched on their onset, vowel, and number of phonemes (e.g. map vs. mat, where the former is more frequent than the latter) were used in a picture naming and a reading aloud task. Low-frequency items yielded slower response latencies than high-frequency items in both tasks, with the frequency effect being significantly larger in picture naming compared to reading aloud. Also, initial-phoneme durations were longer for low-frequency items than for high-frequency items. The frequency effect on initial-phoneme durations was slightly more prominent in picture naming than in reading aloud, yet its size was very small, thus preventing us from concluding that lexical frequency exerts an influence on articulation. Additionally, initial-phoneme and whole-word durations were significantly longer in reading aloud compared to picture naming. We discuss our findings in the context of current theories of reading aloud and speech production, and the approaches they adopt in relation to the nature of information flow (staged vs. cascaded) between cognitive and articulatory levels of processing

Getting a grip on sensorimotor effects in lexical-semantic processing

One of the strategies that researchers have used to investigate the role of sensorimotor information in lexical-semantic processing is to examine effects of words’ rated body-object interaction (BOI; the ease with which the human body can interact with a word’s referent). Processing tends to be facilitated for words with high BOI compared to words with low BOI, across a wide variety of tasks. Such effects have been referenced in debates over the nature of semantic representations, but their theoretical import has been limited by the fact that BOI is a fairly coarse measure of sensorimotor experience with words’ referents. In the present study we collected ratings for 621 words on seven semantic dimensions (graspability, ease of pantomime, number of actions, animacy, size, danger, and usefulness) in order to investigate which attributes are most strongly related to BOI ratings, and to lexical-semantic processing. BOI ratings were obtained from previous norming studies (Bennett, Burnett, Siakaluk, & Pexman, 2011; Tillotson, Siakaluk, & Pexman, 2008) and measures of lexical-semantic processing were obtained from previous behavioural megastudies involving the semantic categorization task (concrete/abstract decision; Pexman, Heard, Lloyd, & Yap, 2017) and the lexical decision task (Balota et al., 2007). Results showed that the motor dimension of graspability, ease of pantomime, and number of actions were all related to BOI and that these dimensions together explained more variance in semantic processing than did BOI ratings alone. These ratings will be useful for researchers who wish to study how different kinds of bodily interactions influence lexical-semantic processing and cognition

Effects of Levels-of-processing and Test-list Context on Recognition and Pupil Dilation

Recognition can be associated with experiences of recollection and/or familiarity. Bodner and Lindsay (2003) found that critical items were more likely to be experienced as recollected (vs. familiar) when tested with a set of less (vs. more) memorable items. But it remains unclear whether test context influences participants’ functional definitions of recollection/familiarity or the strength of their recognition experiences. There is also a debate regarding whether pupil dilation at test reflects cognitive effort, memory strength, and/or the recreation of encoding effort. To help clarify these issues, my thesis examined the effects of levels-of-processing (LOP) and test context on recognition experiences and pupil dilation. Pupil dilation at study and test, and for recollection versus familiarity, provided partial support for all three bases of pupil dilation. In contrast, pupil dilation was not influenced by test context, suggesting context influences a judgment stage (not reflected in the pupil), rather than the recognition experience