Dataset Information

Lexical Stress and Linguistic Predictability Influence Proofreading Behavior.

ABSTRACT: There is extensive evidence that the segmental (i.e., phonemic) layer of phonology is routinely activated during reading, but little is known about whether phonological activation extends beyond phonemes to subsegmental layers (which include articulatory information, such as voicing) and suprasegmental layers (which include prosodic information, such as lexical stress). In three proofreading experiments, we show that spelling errors are detected more reliably in syllables that are stressed than in syllables that are unstressed if comprehension is a goal of the reader, indicating that suprasegmental phonology is both active during silent reading and can influence orthographic processes. In Experiment 1, participants received instructions to read for both errors and comprehension, and we found that the effect of lexical stress interacted with linguistic predictability, such that detection of errors in more predictable words was aided by stress but detection of errors in less predictable words was not. This finding suggests that lexical stress patterns can be accessed prelexically if an upcoming word is sufficiently predictable from context. Participants with stronger vocabularies showed decreased effects of stress on task performance, which is consistent with previous findings that more skilled readers are less swayed by phonological information in decisions about orthographic form. In two subsequent experiments, participants were instructed to read only for errors (Experiment 2) or only for comprehension (Experiment 3); the effect of stress disappeared when participants read for errors and reappeared when participants read for comprehension, reconfirming our hypothesis that predictability is a driver of lexical stress effects. In all experiments, errors were detected more reliably in words that were difficult to predict from context than in words that were highly predictable. Taken together, this series of experiments contributes two important findings to the field of reading and cognition: (1) The prosodic property of lexical stress can influence orthographic processing, and (2) Predictability inhibits the detection of errors in written language processing.

SUBMITTER: Harris LN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4746312 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Lexical Stress and Linguistic Predictability Influence Proofreading Behavior.

Harris Lindsay N LN Perfetti Charles A CA

Frontiers in psychology 20160209

There is extensive evidence that the segmental (i.e., phonemic) layer of phonology is routinely activated during reading, but little is known about whether phonological activation extends beyond phonemes to subsegmental layers (which include articulatory information, such as voicing) and suprasegmental layers (which include prosodic information, such as lexical stress). In three proofreading experiments, we show that spelling errors are detected more reliably in syllables that are stressed than ...[more]

PMID: 26903904

Similar Datasets

Project description:Mounting evidence indicates that posterolateral portions of the cerebellum (right Crus I/II) contribute to language processing, but the nature of this role remains unclear. Based on a well-supported theory of cerebellar motor function, which ascribes to the cerebellum a role in short-term prediction through internal modeling, we hypothesize that right cerebellar Crus I/II supports prediction of upcoming sentence content. We tested this hypothesis using event-related fMRI in male and female human subjects by manipulating the predictability of written sentences. Our design controlled for motor planning and execution, as well as for linguistic features and working memory load; it also allowed separation of the prediction interval from the presentation of the final sentence item. In addition, three further fMRI tasks captured semantic, phonological, and orthographic processing to shed light on the nature of the information processed. As hypothesized, activity in right posterolateral cerebellum correlated with the predictability of the upcoming target word. This cerebellar region also responded to prediction error during the outcome of the trial. Further, this region was engaged in phonological, but not semantic or orthographic, processing. This is the first imaging study to demonstrate a right cerebellar contribution in language comprehension independently from motor, cognitive, and linguistic confounds. These results complement our work using other methodologies showing cerebellar engagement in linguistic prediction and suggest that internal modeling of phonological representations aids language production and comprehension.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT The cerebellum is traditionally seen as a motor structure that allows for smooth movement by predicting upcoming signals. However, the cerebellum is also consistently implicated in nonmotor functions such as language and working memory. Using fMRI, we identify a cerebellar area that is active when words are predicted and when these predictions are violated. This area is active in a separate task that requires phonological processing, but not in tasks that require semantic or visuospatial processing. Our results support the idea of prediction as a unifying cerebellar function in motor and nonmotor domains. We provide new insights by linking the cerebellar role in prediction to its role in verbal working memory, suggesting that these predictions involve phonological processing.

Project description:To ensure animal welfare is not compromised, virtual fencing must be predictable and controllable, and this is achieved through associative learning. To assess the influence of predictability and controllability on physiological and behavioral responses to the aversive component of a virtual fence, two methods of training animals were compared. In the first method, positive punishment training involved sheep learning that after an audio stimulus, an electrical stimulus would follow only when they did not respond by stopping or turning at the virtual fence (predictable controllability). In the second method, classical conditioning was used to associate an audio stimulus with an electrical stimulus on all occasions (predictable uncontrollability). Eighty Merino ewes received one of the following treatments: control (no training and no stimuli in testing); positive punishment training with an audio stimulus in testing (PP); classical conditioning training with only an audio stimulus in testing (CC1); and classical conditioning training with an audio stimulus followed by electrical stimulus in testing (CC2). The stimuli were applied manually with an electronic collar. Training occurred on 4 consecutive days with one session per sheep per day. Sheep were then assessed for stress responses to the cues by measuring plasma cortisol, body temperature and behaviors. Predictable controllability (PP) sheep showed no differences in behavioral and physiological responses compared with the control treatment (P < 0.05). Predictable uncontrollability of receiving the aversive stimulus (CC2) induced a higher cortisol and body temperature response compared to the control but was not different to CC1 and PP treatments. CC2 treatment sheep showed a higher number of turning behaviors (P < 0.001), and more time spent running (P < 0.001) than the control and PP treatment groups, indicating that predictability without controllability was stressful. The behavior results also indicate that predicting the event without receiving it (CC1) was less stressful than predicting the event then receiving it (CC2), suggesting that there is a cost to confirmation of uncontrollability. These results demonstrate that a situation of predictability and controllability such as experienced when an animal successfully learns to avoid the aversive component of a virtual fence, induces a comparatively minimal stress response and does not compromise animal welfare.

Dataset Information

Lexical Stress and Linguistic Predictability Influence Proofreading Behavior.

Publications

Lexical Stress and Linguistic Predictability Influence Proofreading Behavior.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets