Literature DB >> 33375842

Expecting Questions Modulates Cognitive Effort in a Syntactic Processing Task: Evidence From Pupillometry.

Laura Roche Chapman1, Brooke Hallowell2.   

Abstract

Purpose Pupillary responses captured via pupillometry (measurement of pupillary dilation and constriction during the performance of a cognitive task) are psychophysiological indicators of cognitive effort, attention, arousal, and resource engagement. Pupillometry may be a promising tool for enhancing our understanding of the relationship between cognition and language in people with and without aphasia. Interpretation of pupillary responses is complex. This study was designed as a stepping-stone for future pupillometric studies involving people with aphasia. Asking comprehension questions is common in language processing research involving people with and without aphasia. However, the influence of comprehension questions on pupillometric indices of task engagement (tonic responses) and cognitive effort (task-evoked responses of the pupil [TERPs]) is unknown. We tested whether asking comprehension questions influenced pupillometric results of adults without aphasia during a syntactic processing task. Method Forty adults without aphasia listened to easy (canonical) and difficult (noncanonical) sentences in two conditions: one that contained an explicit comprehension task (question condition) and one that did not (no-question condition). The influence of condition and canonicity on pupillary responses was examined. Results The influence of canonicity was only significant in the question condition: TERPs for difficult sentences were larger than TERPs for easy sentences. Tonic responses did not differ between conditions. Conclusions Although participants had similar levels of attentiveness in both conditions, increases in indices of cognitive effort during syntactic processing were significant only when participants expected comprehension questions. Results contribute to a body of evidence indicating the importance of task design and careful linguistic stimulus control when using pupillometry to study language processing. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.13480368.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33375842      PMCID: PMC8608151          DOI: 10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00071

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res        ISSN: 1092-4388            Impact factor:   2.297


  51 in total

1.  Brain activation and pupil response during covert performance of the Stroop Color Word task.

Authors:  G G Brown; S S Kindermann; G J Siegle; E Granholm; E C Wong; R B Buxton
Journal:  J Int Neuropsychol Soc       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 2.892

2.  Activation of monkey locus coeruleus neurons varies with difficulty and performance in a target detection task.

Authors:  Janusz Rajkowski; Henryk Majczynski; Edwin Clayton; Gary Aston-Jones
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2004-03-17       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Pupil dilation in response preparation.

Authors:  Sofie Moresi; Jos J Adam; Jons Rijcken; Pascal W M Van Gerven; Harm Kuipers; Jelle Jolles
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2007-11-09       Impact factor: 2.997

4.  The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment.

Authors:  Ziad S Nasreddine; Natalie A Phillips; Valérie Bédirian; Simon Charbonneau; Victor Whitehead; Isabelle Collin; Jeffrey L Cummings; Howard Chertkow
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 5.562

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.  Pupil size signals mental effort deployed during multiple object tracking and predicts brain activity in the dorsal attention network and the locus coeruleus.

Authors:  Dag Alnæs; Markus Handal Sneve; Thomas Espeseth; Tor Endestad; Steven Harry Pieter van de Pavert; Bruno Laeng
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 2.240

7.  Pupil responses to grammatical complexity of sentences.

Authors:  M Schluroff
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  1982-09       Impact factor: 2.381

8.  Pupil diameter and load on memory.

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

9.  Treating agrammatic aphasia within a linguistic framework: Treatment of Underlying Forms.

Authors:  Cynthia K Thompson; Lewis P Shapiro
Journal:  Aphasiology       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.773

10.  Individual Variations in Effort: Assessing Pupillometry for the Hearing Impaired.

Authors:  Anita E Wagner; Leanne Nagels; Paolo Toffanin; Jane M Opie; Deniz Başkent
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2019 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

View more
  2 in total

1.  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

2.  The Principle of Least Effort and Comprehension of Spoken Sentences by Younger and Older Adults.

Authors:  Nicolai D Ayasse; Alana J Hodson; Arthur Wingfield
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-03-16
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.