Task and Timing Effects in Argument Role Sensitivity: Evidence From Production, EEG, and Computational Modeling

IF 2.3 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Masato Nakamura, Shota Momma, Hiromu Sakai, Colin Phillips
{"title":"Task and Timing Effects in Argument Role Sensitivity: Evidence From Production, EEG, and Computational Modeling","authors":"Masato Nakamura,&nbsp;Shota Momma,&nbsp;Hiromu Sakai,&nbsp;Colin Phillips","doi":"10.1111/cogs.70023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Comprehenders generate expectations about upcoming lexical items in language processing using various types of contextual information. However, a number of studies have shown that argument roles do not impact neural and behavioral prediction measures. Despite these robust findings, some prior studies have suggested that lexical prediction might be sensitive to argument roles in production tasks such as the cloze task or in comprehension tasks when additional time is available for prediction. This study demonstrates that both the task and additional time for prediction independently influence lexical prediction using argument roles, via evidence from closely matched electroencephalogram (EEG) and speeded cloze experiments. In order to investigate the timing effect, our EEG experiment used maximally simple Japanese stimuli such as <i>Bee-nom/acc sting</i>, and it manipulated the time for prediction by changing the temporal interval between the context noun and the target verb without adding any further linguistic content. In order to investigate the task effect, we conducted a speeded cloze study that was matched with our EEG study both in terms of stimuli and the time available for prediction. We found that both the EEG study with additional time for prediction and the speeded cloze study with matched timing showed clear sensitivity to argument roles, while the EEG conditions with less time for prediction replicated the standard pattern of argument role insensitivity. Based on these findings, we propose that lexical prediction is initially insensitive to argument roles but a monitoring mechanism serially inhibits role-inappropriate candidates. This monitoring process operates quickly in production tasks, where it is important to quickly select a single candidate to produce, whereas it may operate more slowly in comprehension tasks, where multiple candidates can be maintained until a continuation is perceived. Computational simulations demonstrate that this mechanism can successfully explain the task and timing effects observed in our experiments.</p>","PeriodicalId":48349,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Science","volume":"48 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.70023","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.70023","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Comprehenders generate expectations about upcoming lexical items in language processing using various types of contextual information. However, a number of studies have shown that argument roles do not impact neural and behavioral prediction measures. Despite these robust findings, some prior studies have suggested that lexical prediction might be sensitive to argument roles in production tasks such as the cloze task or in comprehension tasks when additional time is available for prediction. This study demonstrates that both the task and additional time for prediction independently influence lexical prediction using argument roles, via evidence from closely matched electroencephalogram (EEG) and speeded cloze experiments. In order to investigate the timing effect, our EEG experiment used maximally simple Japanese stimuli such as Bee-nom/acc sting, and it manipulated the time for prediction by changing the temporal interval between the context noun and the target verb without adding any further linguistic content. In order to investigate the task effect, we conducted a speeded cloze study that was matched with our EEG study both in terms of stimuli and the time available for prediction. We found that both the EEG study with additional time for prediction and the speeded cloze study with matched timing showed clear sensitivity to argument roles, while the EEG conditions with less time for prediction replicated the standard pattern of argument role insensitivity. Based on these findings, we propose that lexical prediction is initially insensitive to argument roles but a monitoring mechanism serially inhibits role-inappropriate candidates. This monitoring process operates quickly in production tasks, where it is important to quickly select a single candidate to produce, whereas it may operate more slowly in comprehension tasks, where multiple candidates can be maintained until a continuation is perceived. Computational simulations demonstrate that this mechanism can successfully explain the task and timing effects observed in our experiments.

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: Cognitive Science publishes articles in all areas of cognitive science, covering such topics as knowledge representation, inference, memory processes, learning, problem solving, planning, perception, natural language understanding, connectionism, brain theory, motor control, intentional systems, and other areas of interdisciplinary concern. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers in cognitive science and its associated fields, including anthropologists, education researchers, psychologists, philosophers, linguists, computer scientists, neuroscientists, and roboticists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信