Literature DB >> 22231605

Pupil-BLAH-metry: cognitive effort in speech planning reflected by pupil dilation.

Megan H Papesh1, Stephen D Goldinger.   

Abstract

In reading research, a longstanding question is whether any stages of lexical processing require central attention, and whether such potential demands are frequency-sensitive. In the present study, we examined the allocation of cognitive effort in lexical processing by examining pupil dilations and naming latencies in a modified delayed naming procedure. In this dual-task/change procedure, participants read words and waited for various delays before being signaled to issue a response. On most trials (80%), participants issued a standard naming response. On the remaining trials, they were cued to abandon the original speech plan, saying "blah" instead, thereby equating production across different words. Using feature-matched low- and high-frequency words, we observed the differences in pupil dilations as a function of word frequency. Indeed, frequency-sensitive cognitive demands were seen in word processing, even after naming responses were issued. The results suggest that word perception and/or speech planning requires the frequency-sensitive allocation of cognitive resources.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22231605      PMCID: PMC5543177          DOI: 10.3758/s13414-011-0263-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.199


  36 in total

1.  Vexierversuch: the log relationship between word-frequency and recognition obtained in the absence of stimulus words.

Authors:  I GOLDIAMOND; W F HAWKINS
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1958-12

2.  Memory load and the cognitive pupillary response in aging.

Authors:  Pascal W M Van Gerven; Fred Paas; Jeroen J G Van Merriënboer; Henk G Schmidt
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.016

3.  Attention allocation in the dual-task paradigm as measured through behavioral and psychophysiological responses.

Authors:  Canan Karatekin; Jane W Couperus; David J Marcus
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.016

4.  Neighborhood frequency effects in visual word recognition: a comparison of lexical decision and masked identification latencies.

Authors:  J Grainger; J Segui
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1990-02

5.  Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: a critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English.

Authors:  Marc Brysbaert; Boris New
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2009-11

6.  Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity.

Authors:  K Rayner; S A Duffy
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1986-05

7.  Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources.

Authors:  J Beatty
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1982-03       Impact factor: 17.737

8.  Pupil diameter and load on memory.

Authors:  D Kahneman; J Beatty
Journal:  Science       Date:  1966-12-23       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  The English Lexicon Project.

Authors:  David A Balota; Melvin J Yap; Michael J Cortese; Keith A Hutchison; Brett Kessler; Bjorn Loftis; James H Neely; Douglas L Nelson; Greg B Simpson; Rebecca Treiman
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2007-08

10.  Pupillary responses and attentional allocation problems on the backward masking task in schizophrenia.

Authors:  Eric Granholm; Steven P Verney
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 2.997

View more
  13 in total

1.  Eyes wide open: Pupil size as a proxy for inhibition in the masked-priming paradigm.

Authors:  Jason Geller; Mary L Still; Alison L Morris
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2016-05

2.  Pupillometry shows the effort of auditory attention switching.

Authors:  Daniel R McCloy; Bonnie K Lau; Eric Larson; Katherine A I Pratt; Adrian K C Lee
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Auditory attention switching with listening difficulty: Behavioral and pupillometric measures.

Authors:  Daniel R McCloy; Eric Larson; Adrian K C Lee
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  A Novel Pupillometric Method for Indexing Word Difficulty in Individuals With and Without Aphasia.

Authors:  Laura R Chapman; Brooke Hallowell
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  The Unfolding of Cognitive Effort During Sentence Processing: Pupillometric Evidence From People With and Without Aphasia.

Authors:  Laura Roche Chapman; Brooke Hallowell
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-11-11       Impact factor: 2.674

6.  Publication guidelines and recommendations for pupillary measurement in psychophysiological studies.

Authors:  Stuart R Steinhauer; Margaret M Bradley; Greg J Siegle; Kathryn A Roecklein; Annika Dix
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2022-04       Impact factor: 4.348

7.  Pupil size varies with word listening and response selection difficulty in older adults with hearing loss.

Authors:  Stefanie E Kuchinsky; Jayne B Ahlstrom; Kenneth I Vaden; Stephanie L Cute; Larry E Humes; Judy R Dubno; Mark A Eckert
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 4.016

8.  Contrast Is in the Eye of the Beholder: Infelicitous Beat Gesture Increases Cognitive Load During Online Spoken Discourse Comprehension.

Authors:  Laura M Morett; Jennifer M Roche; Scott H Fraundorf; James C McPartland
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2020-10

9.  Second language experience modulates word retrieval effort in bilinguals: evidence from pupillometry.

Authors:  Jens Schmidtke
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-02-21

Review 10.  Best Practices and Advice for Using Pupillometry to Measure Listening Effort: An Introduction for Those Who Want to Get Started.

Authors:  Matthew B Winn; Dorothea Wendt; Thomas Koelewijn; Stefanie E Kuchinsky
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.