From lollipops to lidocaine: The need for a universal print-to-speech framework.

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Jacqueline Cummine, Angela Cullum, Daniel Aalto, Tyson Sereda, Cassidy Fleming, Alesha Reed, Amberley Ostevik, Sienna Cashion-Dextrase, Caroline C Jeffery, William E Hodgetts
{"title":"From lollipops to lidocaine: The need for a universal print-to-speech framework.","authors":"Jacqueline Cummine,&nbsp;Angela Cullum,&nbsp;Daniel Aalto,&nbsp;Tyson Sereda,&nbsp;Cassidy Fleming,&nbsp;Alesha Reed,&nbsp;Amberley Ostevik,&nbsp;Sienna Cashion-Dextrase,&nbsp;Caroline C Jeffery,&nbsp;William E Hodgetts","doi":"10.1037/cep0000257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>There is a strong relationship between reading and articulation (Lervåg & Hulme, 2009; Pan et al., 2011). Given the tight coupling of these processes, innovative approaches are needed to understand the intricacies associated with print-speech connections. Here we ran a series of tightly controlled experiments to examine the impact of mouth perturbations on silent reading.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We altered the mouth, via somatosensory feedback, in several ways: (a) a large lollipop in the mouth (E1), (b) a candy stick (bite bar) held horizontally between the teeth (E2), and (c) lidocaine that served to numb the mouth (E3). Three tasks were completed: (a) picture categorization, (b) \"spell\" lexical decision (Spell-LDT; \"does the letter string spell a real word, yes or no?\"), and (c) \"sound\" lexical decision (Sound-LDT; \"does the letter string sound like a real word, yes or no?\"). Participants (<i>N</i> = 97; E1 = 27; E2 = 32; E3 = 38) completed each of the tasks two times: once with a somatosensory perturbation (lollipop, bite bar, or lidocaine) and once without.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For each experiment, a linear mixed effects analysis was run. Overall, we found that the lollipop (E1) and lidocaine (E3) had some specific effects on word recognition (e.g., for \"no\" responses), particularly in the Spell-LDT, whereas the bite bar (E2) had no effect on word recognition. The picture categorization task was not impacted by any perturbations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings provide evidence that sensorimotor information is connected to reading. We discuss how these findings advance our understanding of a print-to-speech framework. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":51529,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000257","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/6/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: There is a strong relationship between reading and articulation (Lervåg & Hulme, 2009; Pan et al., 2011). Given the tight coupling of these processes, innovative approaches are needed to understand the intricacies associated with print-speech connections. Here we ran a series of tightly controlled experiments to examine the impact of mouth perturbations on silent reading.

Method: We altered the mouth, via somatosensory feedback, in several ways: (a) a large lollipop in the mouth (E1), (b) a candy stick (bite bar) held horizontally between the teeth (E2), and (c) lidocaine that served to numb the mouth (E3). Three tasks were completed: (a) picture categorization, (b) "spell" lexical decision (Spell-LDT; "does the letter string spell a real word, yes or no?"), and (c) "sound" lexical decision (Sound-LDT; "does the letter string sound like a real word, yes or no?"). Participants (N = 97; E1 = 27; E2 = 32; E3 = 38) completed each of the tasks two times: once with a somatosensory perturbation (lollipop, bite bar, or lidocaine) and once without.

Results: For each experiment, a linear mixed effects analysis was run. Overall, we found that the lollipop (E1) and lidocaine (E3) had some specific effects on word recognition (e.g., for "no" responses), particularly in the Spell-LDT, whereas the bite bar (E2) had no effect on word recognition. The picture categorization task was not impacted by any perturbations.

Conclusion: These findings provide evidence that sensorimotor information is connected to reading. We discuss how these findings advance our understanding of a print-to-speech framework. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

从棒棒糖到利多卡因:需要一个通用的从印刷到语言的框架。
目的:阅读和发音之间存在很强的关系(lerv & Hulme, 2009;Pan et al., 2011)。鉴于这些过程的紧密耦合,需要创新的方法来理解与印刷-言语连接相关的复杂性。在这里,我们进行了一系列严格控制的实验,以检验嘴部扰动对默读的影响。方法:我们通过体感反馈,以几种方式改变口腔:(a)在口腔中放入一根大棒棒糖(E1), (b)在牙齿之间水平放置一根糖果棒(咬条)(E2),以及(c)利多卡因用于麻痹口腔(E3)。完成三个任务:(a)图片分类;(b)“拼写”词法决定(spell - ldt;“这个字母串拼写的是一个真正的单词,是还是不是?”),以及(c)“声音”词汇决定(sound - ldt;“这个字母串听起来像一个真正的单词吗,是还是不是?”)。参与者(N = 97;E1 = 27;E2 = 32;E3 = 38)完成每项任务两次:一次有躯体感觉干扰(棒棒糖、咬棒或利多卡因),另一次没有。结果:对每个实验进行线性混合效应分析。总的来说,我们发现棒棒糖(E1)和利多卡因(E3)对单词识别有一些特定的影响(例如,对于“否”的反应),特别是在拼写- ldt中,而咬条(E2)对单词识别没有影响。图像分类任务不受任何干扰的影响。结论:这些发现为感觉运动信息与阅读有关提供了证据。我们讨论了这些发现如何促进我们对打印到语音框架的理解。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology publishes original research papers that advance understanding of the field of experimental psychology, broadly considered. This includes, but is not restricted to, cognition, perception, motor performance, attention, memory, learning, language, decision making, development, comparative psychology, and neuroscience. The journal publishes - papers reporting empirical results that advance knowledge in a particular research area; - papers describing theoretical, methodological, or conceptual advances that are relevant to the interpretation of empirical evidence in the field; - brief reports (less than 2,500 words for the main text) that describe new results or analyses with clear theoretical or methodological import.
×
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