The Effects of Cognitive Load on the Perception of Foreign-Accented Words

47 Pages·2016·0.52 MB·English

CClleevveellaanndd SSttaattee UUnniivveerrssiittyy
EEnnggaaggeeddSScchhoollaarrsshhiipp@@CCSSUU
ETD Archive
2016
TThhee EEffffeeccttss ooff CCooggnniittiivvee LLooaadd oonn tthhee PPeerrcceeppttiioonn ooff FFoorreeiiggnn--
AAcccceenntteedd WWoorrddss
Leah M. Bonath
Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/etdarchive
Part of the Psychology Commons
HHooww ddooeess aacccceessss ttoo tthhiiss wwoorrkk bbeenneefifitt yyoouu?? LLeett uuss kknnooww!!
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Bonath, Leah M., "The Effects of Cognitive Load on the Perception of Foreign-Accented Words" (2016).
ETD Archive. 907.
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/etdarchive/907
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for
inclusion in ETD Archive by an authorized administrator of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information,
please contact [email protected].
THE EFFECTS OF COGNTIVE LOAD ON THE PERCEPTION OF FOREIGN-
ACCENTED WORDS

LEAH M. BONATH

Bachelor of Arts in Neuroscience
Hiram College
May, 2013

Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree
MASTER OF ARTS IN PSYCHOLOGY
at the
Cleveland State University
May, 2016
We hereby approve this thesis
For
Leah M. Bonath
Candidate for the Master’s of Arts degree
for the Department of
Psychology
And
CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY’S
College of Graduate Studies by

Thesis Chairperson, Conor T. McLennan
_____________________________________
Psychology & Date

Methodologist and Committee Member, Albert F. Smith
_____________________________________
Department & Date

Committee Member, Eric Allard
______________________________________
Department & Date

Committee Member, Andrew Slifkin
_____________________________________
Psychology & Date

_________April 21, 2016_________
Date of Defense
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would first like to thank my advisor, Dr. Conor McLennan, for his invaluable
guidance and assistance throughout this project. I greatly appreciate his dedication to
seeing all of his students become more capable and knowledgeable researchers. I’d also
like to thank Dr. Sara Incera, my fellow LRLer for sacrificing so much of her time giving
me feedback on my manuscript and helping me with data analysis on top of finishing up
her own dissertation. I acknowledge the rest of the members of the Language Research
Lab for their continued helpful feedback that improved the quality of this research.
Lastly, I’d like to thank my parents for continuously supporting me during my studies
and encouraging me to follow my dreams.
THE EFFECTS OF COGNTIVE LOAD ON THE PERCEPTION OF FOREIGN-
ACCENTED SPEECH
LEAH M. BONATH

ABSTRACT

A significant amount of the research conducted in the area of foreign-accented speech has
examined the influence that intelligibility, comprehensibility, and strength of accent have
on the perception of foreign-accented speech. Factors such as speaking rate, signal-to-
noise ratio, number of talkers, familiarity with the foreign-accent and, most relevant to
the present study, cognitive load all play a role in how accented speech is perceived. In
the current study, we explored the inverse of this relationship. We hypothesized that
degree of cognitive load would affect participants’ accent ratings. The purpose of this
research was to evaluate two competing hypotheses. According to a difficulty-based
account, increases in cognitive load should lead to increased accent ratings, such that
both native and non-native accents are rated stronger. According to an alternative
resource-based account, increases in cognitive load should push accent ratings toward
more neutral ratings, such that native accents are rated stronger and non-native accents
are rated weaker, as there will be fewer available resources to attend to the accent-rating
task. Results showed that cognitive load led to significantly weaker ratings of the foreign-
accented speakers, as predicted by the alternative resource-based account. However, the
influence of cognitive load only emerged in a high cognitive load condition, and
cognitive load had no significant effects on the native-accented speakers. In addition to a
iv
number of potential practical implications for accented speakers, our results have
important theoretical implications for the perception of foreign-accented speech and for
the relationships between language and accent perception.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………...…iv
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………...…....viii
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………….…...ix
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………...1
Foreign Accents and Comprehension……………………………………..1
Speaker-Dependent Variables……………………………………………..3
Speaker-Independent Variables…………………………………………...6
Comprehension Affects Foreign Accent Perception………………………7
Cognitive Load…………………………………………………………….8
Rating Foreign Accents…………………………………………………..10
Previous Work…….………………………………....…………………..12
Present Study…………………………………………………………….13
II. METHOD………………………………………………………………………..14
Participants……………………………………………………………….14
Design……………………………………………………………………14
Stimuli……………………………………………………………………15
Procedure………………………………………………………………...16
III. RESULTS…………………………………………………………………...…...20
Reaction Times…..………………………………………………………20
Final Click……………………………………………………………..…21
Memory Performance……………………………………………………23
IV. DISCUSSION………………………………………………...………………….25
Practical Implications…………………………………………………….28
Classroom Setting………………………………………………..28
Clinical Setting…………………………………………………...30
vi
Future Work………………………………………………..…………….31
V. REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………….33
VI. Appendix……………………………………………………………………………..37

vii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
1. Reaction times for foreign- and native-accented words……………………….…….21
2. Accent ratings by instructions, cognitive load and accent type……………………...22
a. Overall ratings collapsed by instructions…………………………………….22
b. Accent ratings in the accent instruction condition…………………………...23
c. Accent ratings in the cognitive load instruction condition…………………..23
3. Percent of recalled numbers per cognitive load level and instruction type………….24

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1. Progression of a block of Trials……………………………………………………….19

ix