S1 (FriAM 1-65) - The Psychonomic Society

Papers 303–309 Sunday Morning
11:00–11:15 (303)
Identifying Category Representations Through Sequential Effects
in Learning. MATT JONES, University of Texas, Austin—Sequential
effects can be surprisingly informative about the nature of cognitive
representations, because they show how those representations shift
with learning. I illustrate this principle with an application to perceptual
categorization. Simulations and analytical results show that models
that assume different types of category representations yield qualitatively
different patterns of recency effects (defined as the
dependence of the current response on the previous feedback). Exemplar
models predict that recency effects are a direct function of the similarity
between present and previous stimuli, whereas theories based on
prototypes, rules, or decision bounds predict more complex patterns.
Data from two experiments are in close agreement with the predictions
from exemplar theory and in conflict with other approaches.
11:20–11:35 (304)
Embodying Abstract Concepts. DANIEL CASASANTO & SANDRA
LOZANO, Stanford University—Abstract concepts like intelligence,
time, or value present a challenge for “embodied” theories according
to which thoughts are perceptual simulations: How can we perceptually
simulate things we can never perceive? Conceptual Metaphor Theory
offers a potential solution. Linguistic metaphors (e.g., a long time,
a high grade, a deep mystery) suggest many of our abstract ideas are
constituted, in part, by mental representations of perception and motor
action. To test this proposal, we investigated relationships between
manual motor actions and the meanings of abstract words, using novel
Stroop-like Motor-Meaning Congruity tasks. The first set of experiments
showed that perceptuo-motor representations were activated automatically
when participants instantiated abstract concepts. Further
visual hemifield experiments localized these congruity effects in the
right hemisphere, consistent with predictions of embodied theories. Finally,
experiments comparing motor–meaning congruity effects in
right- versus left-handed participants demonstrated that motor experience
determines how we perceptually simulate abstract concepts.
11:40–11:55 (305)
Assessing the Neural Bases of Conceptual Combination With fMRI.
G. ANDREW JAMES, Emory University, W. KYLE SIMMONS, National
Institute of Mental Health, ARON K. BARBEY, National Institute
of Neurological Disorder and Stroke, & XIAOPING P. HU &
LAWRENCE W. BARSALOU, Emory University (read by Lawrence W.
Barsalou)—Many neuroimaging studies of individual concepts have
found that conceptual processing relies on well-established networks
in the brain’s modal systems for perception, action, and introspection.
Neuroimaging studies, however, have generally not addressed the fundamental
process of conceptual combination in which people combine
two or more concepts to form complex conceptual structures. An
fMRI experiment was conducted to identify general mechanisms involved
in conceptual combination, and to assess whether conceptual
combination recruits modality-specific brain networks. Conceptual
combination was assessed by contrasting the processing of simple
noun phrases (modifier plus head noun) with the individual concepts
comprising them. On each trial, a modifier from one of three modalities
(mental state, motion, location) was presented alone, followed by
a head noun presented alone. Analyses identified brain areas associated
with modifiers versus head nouns, processing both kinds of
words in isolation versus in conceptual combination, and modalityspecific
effects associated with the modifiers.
Bilingualism
Beacon A, Sunday Morning, 10:20–12:00
Chaired by Natasha Tokowicz, University of Pittsburgh
10:20–10:35 (306)
Choices, Choices, Choices: The Consequences of Activating Too
Many Translation Alternatives. NATASHA TOKOWICZ, University
47
of Pittsburgh, ERICA B. MICHAEL, University of Maryland Center for
Advanced Study of Language, & COURTNEY J. SMITH, University
of Pittsburgh—In translation production, words with multiple translations
are translated more slowly than words with one translation
(Tokowicz & Kroll, in press). Previous research suggests that this
slowdown is due to active competition between alternatives. In this
study, we investigated the role of individual differences, measured in
terms of working memory span and Stroop interference, in resolving
this type of ambiguity. English–Spanish bilinguals translated singleand
multiple-translation words in both directions. In addition to replicating
the previous slowdown for words with multiple translations, individuals
with higher working memory span and higher Stroop interference
translated more slowly overall than did the remainder of the
individuals, after taking word knowledge into account. The pattern
was the same for single- and multiple-translation words. These results
suggest that individuals with higher span and interference activate additional
translation alternatives (e.g., Tokowicz, Michael, & Kroll,
2004). We discuss the findings in relation to models of bilingual memory
representation.
10:40–10:55 (307)
Bilingual Lexical Access in Context: Evidence From Eye Movements
During Reading. MAYA LIBBEN & DEBRA A. TITONE, McGill
University (read by Debra A. Titone)—Current models of bilingualism
(e.g., BIA+) posit that lexical access during reading is not language
selective. However, much of this research is based on the processing
of words in isolation. We investigate whether language
nonselectivity is attenuated for words embedded in sentence contexts
that bias the target language (e.g., Schwartz & Kroll, 2006). Eye
movements were recorded as French–English bilinguals read English
sentences containing cognates (piano), interlingual homographs
(coin, meaning “corner” in French), or matched control words. Sentence
contexts were high or low semantically constraining. The results
showed significant facilitation for cognates and inhibition for interlingual
homographs in low-constraint sentences in both gaze duration
and fixation count, but not first fixation duration. This cognate facilitation
and homograph inhibition was absent for high-constraint sentences.
Thus, semantically constrained sentences modulate language
selectivity during lexical access for both cognates and interlingual homographs.
Implications for models of bilingual lexical access are
discussed.
11:00–11:15 (308)
Word Recognition in Sentence Contexts By Bilinguals. WOUTER
DUYCK, EVA VAN ASSCHE, DENIS DRIEGHE, & ROBERT J.
HARTSUIKER, Ghent University—Research on bilingualism has
shown that lexical access in visual word recognition by bilinguals is
not selective with respect to language. The present study investigated
language-independent lexical access in bilinguals reading sentences,
which constitutes a strong unilingual linguistic context. In the first experiment,
Dutch–English bilinguals performing an L2 lexical decision
task were faster to recognize identical and nonidentical cognate words
(e.g., banaan–banana) presented in isolation than control words. A
second experiment replicated this effect when the same set of cognates
was presented as the final words of L2 low-constraint sentences. In a
third experiment using eyetracking, we showed that early target reading
time measures also yield cognate facilitation, but only for identical
cognates. In a fourth eyetracking experiment, similar results were
obtained with cognates embedded in L1 sentences. These results suggest
that sentence contexts influence, but do not nullify, cross-lingual
lexical interactions during early visual word recognition by bilinguals.
11:20–11:35 (309)
The Influence of Foreign Accent on Morphological Processing in
English. LAURIE B. FELDMAN & DANA BASNIGHT BROWN,
University at Albany and Haskins Laboratories, & YUKI KANAI,
University at Albany—We used a cross-modal priming procedure to
explore the processing of irregular and regular English verb forms in