Phonological priming of preexisting and new associations in young and elderly adults PDF
Preview Phonological priming of preexisting and new associations in young and elderly adults
PHONOLOGICALPRIMINGOFPREEXISTINGANDNEWASSOCIATIONS INYOUNGANDELDERLYADULTS By KATHERINEKAYWHITE ADISSERTATIONPRESENTEDTOTHEGRADUATESCHOOL OFTHEUNIVERSITYOFFLORIDAINPARTIALFULFILLMENT OFTHEREQUIREMENTSFORTHEDEGREEOF DOCTOROFPHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITYOFFLORIDA 2002 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ThisresearchwassupportedbyaNationalResearchServiceAwardfromtheNational InstituteofMentalHealthandbyaDivision20andRetirementResearchFoundationawardfor DissertationProposal,bothawardedtoKatherineWhite.Igratefullyacknowledgetheguidance andsupportofmydissertationcommitteeandthetrainingthatIreceivedfromtheoutstanding researchersandmentorsattheInstituteonAging.Further,Ithankmycommitteechairand primarymentor,LiseAbrams,whosetraining,support,advice,patience,andcontinual encouragementhavehelpedmereachmygoalsasresearcher,educator,andprofessional. Ialso thankNataliePerson,whosededicatedteachingandfriendshipignitedmyinterestincognitive psychology.IamgratefulfortheassistanceofKristenGregersenandLeilaTolaymat,both invaluableresearchassistants. Forhisunwaveringsupport,patience,andunderstanding,Ithank Danny. Mostofall,Ithankmyparents,mygrandparents,andmybrotherChipfortheirlove, encouragement,andlifelongsupport. 11 TABLEOFCONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii ABSTRACT v CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 RoleofPhonologicalPriminginWordRetrieval 1 PhonologicalPrimingandAging 8 GeneralPredictionsofTwoCognitiveAgingTheories 11 2 LITERATUREREVIEW 16 OverviewofImplicitMemory 16 PhonologicalPriminginWord-StemCompletionandWordRecognition 17 ImplicitMemoryforNewAssociations 23 ImplicitMemoryandAging 25 SummaryofExperiments 33 3 PILOTSTUDY1:NORMATWESTUDYOFHOMOPHONES 35 Method 37 FreeAssociationResults:ChoosingTargetAssociatesfromHomophoneNorms 40 DominanceResults;DeterminingHomophoneDominancefromHomophone Norms 42 4 PILOTSTUDY2:FREEASSOCIATIONTOSTEMSPILOT 45 Method 46 ResultsoftheFreeAssociationtoStemsPilotStudy 48 5 EXPERIMENT1:PHONOLOGICALPRIMINGOFPREEXISTING ASSOCIATIONS 50 Predictions 52 Method 55 Results 60 Discussion 68 hi 6 EXPERIMENT2:PHONOLOGICALPRIMINGOFNEWASSOCIATIONS 80 Predictions 83 Method 85 Results 89 Discussion 95 7 GENERALDISCUSSION 110 RoleofDominanceinPhonologiccalandSemanticPriming 114 PhonologicalPrimingandAging 115 SemanticPrimingandAging 116 8 CONCLUSION 118 APPENDIX A WRITTENFREEASSOCIATIONSURVEY 119 B WRITTENDOMINANCESURVEY 123 C LISTSOFHOMOPHONES 126 D ADULTPARTICIPANTQUESTIONNAIRES 134 E DIGITSPANTESTS 136 F EXPERIMENT1POST-EXPERIMENTQUESTIONNAIRE 137 G EXPERIMENT2POST-EXPERIMENTQUESTIONNAIRE 138 LISTOFREFERENCES 139 BIOGRAPHICALSKETCH 146 IV AbstractofDissertationPresentedtotheGraduateSchooloftheUniversityofFloridain PartialFulfillmentoftheRequirementsfortheDoctorofPhilosophy PHONOLOGICALPRIMINGOFPREEXISTINGANDNEWASSOCIATIONS INYOUNGANDELDERLYADULTS By KatherineKayWhite December2002 Chair:LiseAbrams MajorDepartment:Psychology Twoexperimentsinvestigatedphonologicalprimingofpreexistingandnewassociations inwordretrieval. Youngandolderadultscompletedpairedwordstemswiththefirstwordthat cametomind.Experiment1demonstratedphonologicalprimingofpreexistingassociationsby havingparticipantscompleteword-stempairsthatcontainedhomophonespairedwiththefirst letteroftheoppositehomophone’ssemanticassociate(e.g.,beech-s ). Experiment2 demonstratedphonologicalprimingofnewassociationsbyhavingparticipantsfirstcomplete word-stempairsthatcontainedhomophonespairedwithanunrelatedfirstletter(e.g.,beech- I )andlatercompleteword-stempairsthatcontainedtheoppositehomophonepairedwith thesameunrelatedfirstletter(e.g.,beach-l ). Further,thedominanceofthehomophone pairswasmanipulatedinordertoobservetheeffectofmeaningdominanceonphonological priminginwordretrieval. Youngandolderadultsdemonstratedequivalentamountsof phonologicalpriminginbothexperiments.Further,homophonedominanceinfluenced phonologicalprimingofpreexistingassociationsbutnotnewassociations. Theseresultssuggest thatolderadultsarenotdifferentiallydisadvantagedonimplicittestsofnewassociationpriming versuspreexistingassociationpriming. V CHAPTER1 INTRODUCTION RoleofPhonologicalPriminginWordRetrieval Overthepast20years,cognitivepsychologistshavedevotedconsiderableresearchto howpeoplerepresent,recognize,andretrievewords,withspecificinterestinaword’sabilityto facilitateidentificationofotherwords(i.e.,priming).Individualwordscaninfluencehowwe recognizeandretrieveotherwordsonanumberoflevels: •Wordssimilarinmeaningshowsemanticpriming(e.g.,presentingthewordlightspeeds processingofthesemanticassociatelamp). •Wordspresentedacrosstwopointsintimeshowrepetitionpriming(e.g.,processingofthe wordlightisfasteriflightwaspresentedafewminutesearlier). •Wordssimilarinsoundshowphonologicalpriming(e.g.,presentingthewordlightfacilitates processingofthewordwrite). Considerablylessresearchexistsonphonologicalprimingthanonsemanticandrepetition priming,especiallyforwordretrievalandforelderlyadults.Ofthefewstudiesthathavebeen published,olderadultsappeartohavemoredifficultythanyoungadultsinretrievingthe phonologyofsomelow-ffequencyandnonrecentlyusedwords,leadingtoincreased tip-of-the-tonguestates(Burke,MacKay,Worthley,&Wade,1991). Fortunately,olderadults canbenefitfromrecentexposuretothemissingphonology(James&Burke,2000;Rastle& Burke,1996;White&Abrams,2002). Investigatingtheroleofphonologyinwordretrievaland thenatureofage-relatedbreakdownsacrossphonologicalrepresentationsisparticularlyimportant forremediatingolderadults’weakenedphonologicalrepresentations. Thedistinctionbetweenwordrecognitionandwordretrievalisimportantinmemory research. Visualwordrecognitioninvolvesprocessingtheorthography(i.e.,spelling)and phonology(i.e.,sound)ofaword,comparingthewordwithitsstoredlexicalrepresentation,and 1 2 processingthemeaningoftheword.Incontrast,wordretrievalisinvolvedwhenaconceptisto beexpressed:Memoryissearchedandawordischosenfromthelexicon. Althoughword retrievalcanfeeleffortlessattimes,itisthoughtofasamorecontrolled(effortful)processthan theautomaticprocessofwordrecognition.Therefore,wordrecognitionismoreoftenaless time-consumingprocessthanwordretrievalbecausewordretrievalrequiresfindingthe appropriatewordtorepresentato-be-expressedconcept. Byusingphonologicalpriminginawordrecognitionparadigm,researchersshowedthat aword’smeaningcanbeautomaticallyactivatedthroughaphonologicalcode.Forexample, homophones(e.g.,beach,beech)arewordsthatdifferinorthographyandsemantics,butshare identicalphonology. Researchersinterestedinwhetherpeoplecanaccessaword’smeaning throughaphonologicalcodehaveusedhomophonestoillustratephonologicalpriminginaword recognitiontask: Participantsareaskedtonameatargetword(e.g.,sand)thatisprecededbythe homophone(e.g.,beech)ofawordthatissemanticallyrelatedtothetarget(e.g.,beach).The responsetimetonameatarget{sand)thatcomesafteritsphonologicalprime{beech)iscompared totheresponsetimetonameatargetthatcomesafteranunrelatedprime(e.g.,batch). Many studiesshowedthatbothwordsthatsharephonology(e.g.,beach,beech)facilitaterecognitionof awordthatissemanticallyrelatedtoonlyoneofthewords(e.g.,sand,nut),indicatedbyfaster namingtimesofandlexicaldecisionstothetarget(Lesch&Polatsek,1993;Lukatela&Turvey, 1994).Thus,activationofsandoccursbecausethephonologicalrepresentationforbeechis activatedbeforethelexicalrepresentationofbeech,resultinginthespreadofprimingtoallwords thatshareconnectionstothephonologicalrepresentation/bech/(e.g.,sand,nut). Researchhasyettodetermine,however,whetherphonologicalprimingofthissortoccurs inwordretrieval. Althoughactivationofaword’sphonologicalrepresentationmayautomatically occuruponvisualpresentationoftheword,evidencesuggeststhatorthographic(i.e.,spelling) constraintsdirectwordprocessingafterapproximately200-250ms(Lesch&Pollatsek,1993). 3 Earlyinwordrecognition(within200-250msofvisualpresentation),alllexicalentriesthatshare aphonologicalcodeareactivated.Accordingtoonesupportedmodel,forwordrecognitionto proceed,thelexicalentrywiththehighestactivationmustgothrougha“verificationprocess” wherethewrittenspellingischeckedwiththespellingthatisstoredinmemory(VanOrden, 1987).Ifthetwospellingsmatch,theremaining(inappropriate)lexicalentriesaresuppressed. However,theverificationprocesstakestimeandthereforesubstitutionerrorsfromhomophones canoccur(i.e.,meaningsassociatedwithbothhomophonesareinitiallyactivatedandone meaningissuppressedaftertheverificationprocesshasbeencompleted).Evidenceforthis verificationprocesscomesfromwordrecognitionstudiesthatshowedphonologicalprimingof semanticassociatesonlywhenthephonologicalprime(e.g.,beech)waspresentedlessthan200- 250msbeforethesemanticassociatetarget(e.g.,sand)(Lesch&Pollatsek,1993;Fleming,1993; Lukatela&Turvey,1994). Forexample,LeschandPollatsek(1993)foundthatata200ms intervalbetweentheprimeandtarget,thebenefitofthephonologicalcode(thatwaspresentat50 ms)disappeared.Theseresultssuggestthatphonologicalprimingofsemanticassociatesmaybe unobservableinwordretrievaltasksbecauseretrievaloccursacrosslongerintervalsandismore effortfulthanrecognition(i.e.,ato-be-retrievedwordissearchedforinsteadofsimplyidentified). Thepurposeofthepresentexperimentswastodemonstratephonologicalprimingof semanticassociatesusingword-stemcompletion,ataskthatiscommonlyusedtoinvestigate wordretrievalprocesses. Inatraditionalword-stemcompletiontest,participantsaregivena portionofapreviouslystudiedwordandareaskedtorespondwiththefirstwordthatcomesto mind. Forexample,ifparticipantsstudysandpapertheymightbegivensan attestandbe askedtocompletetheblankwiththefirstwordthatcomestomindandbeginswith“san." Primingoccurswhensan iscompletedmoreoftenwithsandpaperafterrecentpresentation ofthewordthanafternoexposuretotheword. 4 Onerecentstudyusedword-stemcompletiontotestphonologicalprimingof homophoneswithyoungadults(Rueckl&Mathew,1999). Thisstudypresentedparticipants withonemeaningofahomophoneandaskedthemtomakeasemanticjudgmentorafrequency ratingonthathomophone. Afteraninterveningtasklastingapproximately3minutes, participantsweregiventhefirstthreelettersofaseriesofwordsandaskedtocompletetheword stemswiththefirstwordthatcametomind. Thesefirstthreeletterscorrespondedtooneofthree categories: •Theywerethefirstthreelettersofthehomophonethatwasprimed(e.g.,wea_ifweakwas presented). •Theywerethefirstthreelettersofthecorrespondinghomophonethatwasnotprimed(e.g., wee ifweakwaspresented). •Theywerestemsofwordsthatwerenotprimedduringthejudgmentorratingtasks(e.g., wea ifneitherweeknorweakwaspresented). Alloftheirexperimentsshowedthatphonologicalprimingoccurredacrossmeaningsofa homophone,suchthatparticipantsweremorelikelytocompleteastemwithweekiftheywere presentedwithweak3minutesearlier.Thesestudiessupportthenotionthatphonologicalpriming canextendtoretrievalprocesses,evenaftera3-minuteretentioninterval.However,Rueckland Mathew’sstudiesdidnotdeterminewhetherphonologicalprimingofsemanticassociatesoccurs inaretrievalparadigm. Phonologicalpriminginwordretrievalhasalsobeenusedinthecontextofthe tip-of-the-tongue(TOT)phenomenon.TOTsareretrievalfailureswhereawordisknownbutis unabletoberetrievedatthecurrentmoment(Brown&McNeill,1966). Phonologicalprimingof TOTsoccurswhenaword(e.g.,abstract)thatsharesaphonologicalcomponentwiththeTOT word(e.g.,abdicate)facilitatesretrievalofthatword. JamesandBurke(2000)presented participantswhowerehavingTOTswithwordscontainingsimilarphonologytothemissing(i.e., target)word. Forexample,ifparticipantswerehavingaTOTforthewordabdicate,theywould readalistoftenwords,fiveofwhichcontainedthephonologyinabdicate(i.e.,abstract, indigent,truncate,tradition,andlocate). Resultsindicatedthatparticipantsweremorelikelyto 5 resolveTOTswhenpresentedwithphonologicalprimewordsthanwhenpresentedwithunrelated wordsthatdidnotcontainsimilarphonology. Usingasimilarparadigm,WhiteandAbrams (2002)foundthatyoungadultsresolvedTOTsaftertheywerepresentedwithprimesthat correspondedtothefirstsyllableofthetargetword(e.g.,abstract)butnottothemiddle(e.g., indigent)orthelast(e.g.,locate)syllables. ThesestudiesandothersinvestigatingTOTssuggest thatTOTsaretheresultofaninabilitytoretrievethephonologicalcomponentsofaword,even whenthemeaningisactivated(Burke,etal.,1991). Similarly,misactivationofphonological componentscanexplainotherlanguageproductiondeficits,suchasslipsofthetongue(Dell, 1986). Researchinvestigatingwordretrievalprocessesdifferentiatesbetweenretrievalforwords andconceptsthatwealreadyknow(suchasTOTwords)andretrievalforwordsandconcepts thatwehavejustlearned(suchasnewvocabularywordsornewnames). Indeed,retrieval processesinvolvingthesetwotypesofmaterialscandiffergreatlyfromoneanother(i.e., retrievingwordsthatonehasjustlearnedismoredifficultthanretrievingmorefamiliarwords). Atheoreticalframeworkoflanguageperceptionandproduction.NodeStructureTheory(NST; MacKay,1987),providesanexplanationforhowpeopleretrievewordsthathaveapreexisting representationinmemoryversusnewlylearnedwordsorwordsthatrequireanewassociationin memory.Peoplehavepreexistingrepresentations,orconnections,forwordsthatsharea relationshipintheirmemory(e.g.,thewordsbeachandsandaresemanticallyrelated,andthe wordsbeachandbeecharephonologicallyrelated). Incontrast,peoplemustformanew association,orconnection,whentheylearnnewwordsorpairtogethertwowordsthatdidnot haveapreexistingrelationship(e.g.,pairingsandwithkitcheninthesentence,"Thekitchenwas coveredinsandfromthechildren’sclothes.”) NodeStructureTheoryisaconnectionistframeworkthatrepresentswords,theirsemantic representations,phonology,andorthographyinahierarchicalsystemofnodes(i.e.,hypothetical representationsthatstoreinformationinthebrain)(Figure1-1). InNST,astrongconnection
The list of books you might like
