Psych Of Language Final

Front 1

Addition Errors

Back 1

Inflectional ending is added.

Example: incorrectly saying "establishment" instead of "establish"

Front 2

Anticipation Errors

Back 2

A later segment takes the place of an earlier segment.

Example: incorrectly saying "leading list" instead of "reading list"

Front 3

Anticipatory Practice Effect

Back 3

Increased practice lowers the overall error rate but increases AP.

Tongue twister repetition (Schwartz et al. 1994)

Front 4

Anticipatory Speech-Rate Effect

Back 4

As speech rate decreases, error rate decreases, and AP increases. As speech rate increases, error rate increases, and AP decreases.

(Dell, 1990)

Front 5

AP

Back 5

AP= (Anticipations) / (Anticipations +Perseverations)

Front 6

Attentional Disengagement Hypothesis (Taboo words)

Back 6

It is difficult to disengage attention from the meaning of a taboo word, which delays processing of the font color for taboo words in the color-naming task.


Tested by McKay et al. (2004) Experiment 3.

Front 7

Basic Stroop Effect

Back 7

When the name of a color (e.g., "blue," "green," or "red") is printed in a color not denoted by the name (e.g., the word "red" printed in blue ink instead of red ink), naming the color of the word takes longer and is more prone to errors than when the color of the ink matches the name of the color

Front 8

Bilingualism

Back 8

Fluent in two languages

One language is typically dominant

Front 9

Binding hypothesis (Taboo words)

Back 9

Better recall results from binding a word specific emotional reaction with the context.

Word-specific emotional reactions associated with the meaning of a taboo word facilitated recall by triggering binding mechanisms
for encoding contextual information.

McKay et al (2004) Experiment 3

Front 10

Cascaded Production Model

Back 10

More interactive model of production. Lexemes can be activated before the lemma is done processing.

Image-> concept->associated lemmas->corresponding lexemes activated prior to lemma selection

Front 11

Clinical Stroop Effect

Back 11

Patients with a particular affective disorder (e.g., spiderphobia) name the colors of words that are either phobia related (e.g., web) or phobia unrelated (e.g., wet): Colornaming times are longer for the patients than for the normal controls, but only for the phobia-related words.

Front 12

Cognates

Back 12

Similarly spelled and/or pronounced words of different languages that have similar meanings, usually owing to a partially shared etymology.

Front 13

Cross-Language Semantic Priming

Back 13

Tested by Basnight-Brown & Altarriba (2007)

Semantic priming was found for L1->L2 in experiment 1 but not for experiment 2.

Front 14

Deletion Errors

Back 14

Deletions or omissions leave some linguistic material out

Example: incorrectly saying "same sate" instead of "same state"

Front 15

Discrete-serial variant of speech/writing production model

Back 15

Less interactive model of production. Lexemes cannot be activated until the lemma is done processing.

Image-> Concept-> Associated Lemmas-> strongest Lemma activated->corresponding lexeme activated

Front 16

Early Sequential Bilingualism

Back 16

L1 is learned first but L2 is learned relatively early in childhood.

Front 17

Emotional Stroop Effect

Back 17

People take longer to name the color of unpleasant words (e.g., grief, fail, fear, and death) than that of neutral words

Front 18

Exchange Errors

Back 18

Exchanges are double shifts. Two linguistic units change places. Base Morphemes are switched.

Example: incorrectly saying 'reestablished modelment’ instead of
‘‘remodeled establishment’’

Front 19

Frame-Based Model of Speech Production

Back 19

4 nodes: Past, Present, Future, Plan

more present activation->more future activation->Fewer errors but more anticipatory errors

more past activation->perseveratory error

Front 20

General Anticipatory Effect

Back 20

overall error rate predicts AP

Front 21

Habituation

Back 21

Practice effect. Practice increases the ability to ignore the word in tests and accurately say the target color.

Front 22

Ink Color Naming Task

Back 22

Stroop effect, see the word “blue” written in green ink,
must name the color of the ink, not the word.

Front 23

L1

Back 23

1st language learned

Front 24

L2

Back 24

2nd language learned

Front 25

Late Bilingualism

Back 25

L2 is introduced after adolescence.

Front 26

Lemmas

Back 26

A level of representation of a word between its semantic and phonological representations; it is syntactically specified, but does not yet contain sound-level information.

It contains meaning and syntactical information (e.g. noun)

Front 27

Lexemes

Back 27

The phonological word-form, in a format where sounds are presented.

It contains form information, phonology, and orthography.

Front 28

Mood Induction Technique

Back 28

1. Emotionality: Words that cause an emotional response
2. Mood Congruence: Association between affect and valence
3. Concern Relevance

Front 29

Morphemic errors

Back 29

1. Exchange Errors
2. Addition Errors
3. Shift Errors

Front 30

Perseveratory errors

Back 30

When reading two words, a certain phoneme of the first word remains activated and creates a speech error in the second word.

Example: incorrectly saying "reading rist" instead of "reading list"

Front 31

Phonemic errors

Back 31

1. Perseveration Errors
2. Deletion Errors
3. Combination Errors
4. Anticipation Errors

Front 32

Picture norms

Back 32

1. name agreement
2. image agreement
3. familiarity
4. visual complexity

Front 33

Picture-word interference paradigm

Back 33

naming a picture (e.g., a dog) takes
longer when the distractor is semantically related (e.g., cat) than
when it is unrelated (e.g., roof) to the target (e.g., dog).

Front 34

Productive vs. Receptive Bilingualism

Back 34

Being able to say vs. understand a second language

Front 35

Relatedness proportion

Back 35

(Trials with RP)/(All Trials)

Front 36

Revised Hierarchical Model

Back 36

There are asymmetrical links in bilingual lexical representations. L1 is supposedly larger due to a larger vocabulary in L1 than L2. The link between L1 and concepts is bidirectional and very strong. When learning L2, mental pathways are made through L1. The link between L2 and concepts is weak.

Front 37

Semantic Interference Effect in Picture Naming Paradigm

Back 37

When participants shown "tree" and hear a semantically related distractor ("plant"), it slows RT in comparison to an unrelated distractor ("boat").

Supports the discrete serial view.

Front 38

Serial Order Theories of Speech Production

Back 38

Production model: conceptualization, formulation, articulation.

Bonin & Fayol (2001) compare spoken and written speech production.

Front 39

Shift Errors

Back 39

One speech segment disappears from its appropriate location and appears somewhere else.

Example: Incorrectly saying "get its" instead of "gets it"

Front 40

Simultaneous Bilingualism

Back 40

L1 and L2 are learned at about the same time.

Front 41

SOA

Back 41

The time period between when a stimulus image is shown, and a mask is presented. Longer SOA's allow a subject to have more time to digest and identify what they saw in the stimulus image.

Front 42

Speech error induction (with tongue twisters) methodology

Back 42

3 x 2 mixed factorial
design: age (3 groups), between subjects, and rate (2 groups), within-subjects.

Front 43

Speech/writing production model: conceptualizing, formulating, articulating

Back 43

1. Conceptualizing = activate concept/thought of a thing.
2. Formulating = necessary info retrieved, access to appropriate lexeme.
3. Articulating = generate motor response.

Front 44

Substitution Errors

Back 44

Substitution of an entire word that is semantically related

pass the salt/pepper

Front 45

Syntactic Errors

Back 45

1. Anticipation Errors
2. Association Errors
3. Exchange Errors

Front 46

Taboo Stroop Effect

Back 46

When people name the color of randomly intermixed taboo and neutral words, color-naming times are longer for taboo than for neutral words.

Front 47

Translation Priming

Back 47

L1->L2 priming is stable

L2->L1 may have a speed accuracy trade-off

Front 48

Word valence

Back 48

- In the context of the emotional and taboo Stroop effects. Valence refers to the positive or negative nature of a word. For example, words with a positive valence (e.g., smile, flower) are likely to evoke positive feelings.

Front 49

MacKay et al. (2004)

Experiment 1: What was the basic method?

Back 49

Measures:10 taboo and 10 neutral words that were closely matched for initial letters, length in syllables and letters, and mean familiarity
ratings.

Procedure: (200 trials)
Ink Color Naming Task
1. 1,000 ms fixation
2. Target until response
3. 2,000 ms ITI
4. After trial 200, participants were asked to write down any words they remembered.

Front 50

MacKay et al. (2004)

Experiment 1: What were the basic results?

Back 50

1. RTs decreased for taboo words with repetition (Habituation)
2. Better recall for Taboo words
3. Taboo Stroop Effect

Front 51

MacKay et al. (2004)

Experiment 2: What was the basic method?

Back 51

The procedure was identical to that Experiment 1, except that 14 participants saw the taboo and neutral words numbered 1–5 in during Trials 1–100 (repeated 10 times) and the remaining 10 words during Trials 101–200. The remaining 14 participants saw the taboo and neutral words numbered 6–10 during Trials 1–100 and the remaining 10 words in Trials 101–200.

Front 52

MacKay et al. (2004)

Experiment 2: What were the basic results?

Back 52

The habituation process was due to the participants being exposed to the same individual words, not just taboo words in general.

Front 53

MacKay et al. (2004)

Experiment 3: What was the basic method?

Back 53

Measures: Taboo words and neutral words

Procedure:
3 Phases- Name Learning, Color Naming, Color Recognition

Name Learning:
Participants learned the name of the colors.

Color Naming:Resembles experiments 1 and 2.

Color Recognition: Participants were shown words in each of the six colors. They were then asked to indicate which color it originally appeared in, in addition to their confidence.

Front 54

MacKay et al. (2004)

Experiment 3: What were the basic results?

Back 54

Participants remembered taboo words colors more accurately (55
to 43 (neutral), Confidently (3.8/5 to 2.9/5) and quicker (2.8msec vs 3.4
msec) than neutral words. Supports Binding Hypothesis.

Front 55

MacKay et al. (2004)

Experiment 5: What was the basic method?

Back 55

Measures: The materials were 12 taboo words, 12 neutral words,
and 36 nonwords. The neutral words were animal names matched in
pairs with taboo words for length in syllables and letters, mean
familiarity ratings, homophony, and stress pattern (e.g., panther–
bastard). An additional 6 taboo and 6 neutral words not fully matched
on these factors served as fillers. They all appeared in black ink.

Procedure:
Lexical Decision Task

Front 56

MacKay et al. (2004)

Experiment 5: What were the basic results?

Back 56

Words were evenly recognized. Better memory in surprise task for taboo words.

Front 57

Vousden & Maylor (2006)

Experiment 1: What was the basic method?

Back 57

Design: 3 (Age: 8 and 9, 11, undergrad) x 2 (Rate:normal, fast)

Materials: 6 tongue twisters in each group (A or B) rated as being equally difficult.

Procedure:
Half of the participants per age group received group A tongue twisters at a normal rate and group B tongue twisters at a fast rate. This was reversed for the other half of the age group. There were 3 trial blocks per tongue twister group. Participants repeated each tongue twister twice per block.

Front 58

Vousden & Maylor (2006)

Experiment 1: What were the basic results?

Back 58

1. Children made more errors than adults.
2. Anticipatory Age Effect: Higher AP for adults
3. Anticipatory Speech Rate Effect: slower rate, higher AP

Front 59

Vousden & Maylor (2006)

Experiment 2: What was the basic method?

Back 59

Same as experiment 1 with the following exceptions:
1. Increased number of tongue twisters from 12 to 16
2. Increased the number of trials

Participants: older adults and undergrads

Front 60

Vousden & Maylor (2006)

Experiment 2: What were the basic results?

Back 60

1. Older adults could not do the fast rate
2. Anticipatory Speech-Rate Effect: young adults had greater AP at slower rate
3. Anticipatory Aging Effect: Not present. No error differences between age groups at the slower rate.

Front 61

Basnight-Brown & Altarriba (2007)

Experiment 1: What was the basic method?

Back 61

Participants: 24 Spanish-English Bilinguals

Materials: Two lists consisting of either translations or semantically related word pairs were randomly generated. They were matched on frequency and word length. There were also unrelated word pairs and nonword pairs. Each participant saw 252 word pairs.They saw more nonwords and unrelated pairs, lowering the RP. Low SOA to reduce strategies.

Procedure:
Lexical Decision Priming Paradigm
1. 500 ms fixation
2. 100 ms prime
3. target word until response (or 1,500 ms)
4. 2,000 Inter-trial interval

Front 62

Basnight-Brown & Altarriba (2007)

Experiment 1: What were the basic results?

Back 62

1. Main effect of target language (English targets faster than Spanish targets.)
2. Main effect of relationship (faster
after related prime than after unrelated.)
3. Semantic priming L1 to L2,
4. Translation priming L1 to L2 and L2 to L1.
5. Nonword effects: slower responses to Spanish nonwords.
6. More errors in Spanish target conditions

Front 63

Basnight-Brown & Altarriba (2007)

Experiment 2: What was the basic method?

Back 63

Participants: 51 Spanish-English Bilinguals

Materials: Same as Experiment 1

Procedure:
Forward Masked Priming Paradigm
1. 500 ms fixation
2. 500 ms masking (####)
3. 100 ms prime
4. target word until response (or 1,500 ms)
5. 2,000 ms ITI

Front 64

Basnight-Brown & Altarriba (2007)

Experiment 2: What were the basic results?

Back 64

1. No semantic priming effects at all
2. Translation priming effect was present
3. Main effect of related-unrelated condition
4. More errors in Spanish target conditions

Front 65

Bonin and Fayol (2000)

Experiment 1:What was the basic method?

Back 65

Measures: 20 drawings. Participants studied a booklet with the target pictures and their names.

Design: 4 (Distractor type: Related, Unrelated, Neutral, Silent) X 2 (SOA: 150 ms, 0 ms) X 2 (Output Type: Written, Spoken)

Apparatus: A computer was used to display the images. Latencies were measured by using a contact pen (written) and a microphone (spoken).

Procedure:
1. Ready Signal (500 ms)
2. Distractor (SOA condition)
3. Picture Presentation
4. Participant Response
5. next trial began after a pause of 5000 ms

Front 66

Bonin and Fayol (2000)

Experiment 1:What were the basic results?

Back 66

1. RTs were faster in the naming than in the writing conditions.
2. RTs were slower in the semantic and unrelated conditions than in the neutral and control conditions.
3. Semantic Interference Effect difference between the related and unrelated conditions was significant at -150 SOA but not at 0 SOA. (effect was found for both tasks)
5. Error rate was higher in the naming task than in the writing task,

Front 67

Bonin and Fayol (2000)

Experiment 2:What was the basic method?

Back 67

Materials: Same as Experiment 1. The pictures were divided into two groups of ten. Half of the participants received the first set in the first phase, followed by both sets in the second phase. The order was reversed for the other half of the participants.

Design: 4 (Distractor type: Related, Unrelated, Neutral, Silent) X 2 (Set type: 1, 2) X 2 (Word Type: Old, New)

Apparatus: Same as Experiment 1

Procedure:
1. Picture Presentation ( 150 SOA)
2. Participant Response (pushed a button on a keyboard)

Front 68

Bonin and Fayol (2000)

Experiment 2:What were the basic results?

Back 68

1. RTs were faster for old items than new items.
2. More errors for old items than new items.
3. Semantic effect does not occur at conceptual level

Front 69

Bonin and Fayol (2000)

Experiment 3:What was the basic method?

Back 69

Measures: 22 drawings. An additional 6 drawings were used in practice trials.

Design: 2 (SOA: 150 ms, 0 ms) X 2 (Phonological Relatedness: related, unrelated) X 2 (Semantic Relatedness: related, unrelated)

Apparatus: Same as Experiment 1

Procedure: Same as Experiment 1

Front 70

Bonin and Fayol (2000)

Experiment 3:What were the basic results?

Back 70

1. SOA does not matter
2. Semantic interference occurs in phonologically unrelated conditions. It goes away in the phonologically related conditions.
3. 2X2 interaction for semantic interference at both SOIs for phonologically unrelated conditions.
4. Supports cascaded model.

Front 71

Short Answer: What measures do researchers take to guard against conscious strategies in semantic priming tasks?

Back 71

1. Low relatedness proportion
2. Try to keep the prime duration under 250ms
3. Use a forward mask to further limit conscious availability of prime

Front 72

Short Answer: What causes a more error prone system?

Back 72

1. Rate of speech
2. Age
3. Practice