Top

Gepubliceerd in:

02-02-2023 | Research

A comparative study of the cognitive load of basic-level category, superordinate category and subordinate category

Auteurs: Min Ji, Chuanwei Luo, Jiaxin Ren, Yixin Yang

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 7/2023

Abstract

Some cognitive linguists (Rosch et al. Cognit Psychol 8:382–439, 1976; Ungerer and Schmid An introduction to cognitive linguistics, Pearson Education Limited, London, England, 2006) believe the basic level category has cognitive economy because the basic level category allows obtaining the maximum amount of information about an item with the lowest cognitive effort. Whether it is also true for L2 learners has not been verified so far. This study examined whether Chinese English learners’ cognitive load of basic level category is lower than that of superordinate category and subordinate category. The eye movement data, including that of total duration of fixations, total number of fixations, duration of first fixation, and average duration of fixations, generated by 31 Chinese English learners while reading sentences with different levels of category words, were collected and analyzed. The results showed that Chinese English learners’ cognitive load of the basic level category was the lowest. This study provides cross-linguistic experimental evidence for the basic level category theory, and also shows the cognitive economy of basic level categories is an intrinsic psychological property, no matter whether it is the first language or the second language that the readers use.

vorige artikel Octave illusion: stimulation frequencies can modulate perception

volgende artikel Sensorimotor synchronization with visual, auditory, and tactile modalities

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Ahern, S., & Beatty, J. (1979). Pupillary responses during information processing vary with Scholastic Aptitude Test scores. Science, 205(4412), 1289–1292.PubMedCrossRef

Balota, A., Cortese, J., Sergent-Marshall, D., Spieler, H., & Yap, J. (2004). Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 283–316.PubMedCrossRef

Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660.PubMedCrossRef

Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617–645.PubMedCrossRef

Berlin, B., & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. University of California Press.

Brown, R. (1958). How shall a thing be called? Psychological Review, 65(1), 14–21.PubMedCrossRef

Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system From identification to decision. Bilingualism Language and Cognition., 5, 175–197.CrossRef

Duyck, W., Van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2007). Visual word recognition by bilinguals in a sentence context: Evidence for nonselective lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 663–679. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.663CrossRefPubMed

Fredericks, K., Sang, C., Hart, J., Steven, B., & Anil, M. (2005). An investigation of myocardial aerobic capacity as a measure of both physical and cognitive workloads. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35(12), 1097–1107.CrossRef

Haapalainen, E., Kim, S., Forlizzi, F., & Dey, K. (2010). Psycho-physiological measures for assessing cognitive load. In M. Din (Ed.), of the ACM international conference on ubiquitous computing. Copenhagen: Denmark.

Hess, E. H., & Polt, J. M. (1960). Pupil size as related to interest value of visual stimuli. Science, 132(3423), 349–350.PubMedCrossRef

Inhoff, A. W., & Rayner, K. (1986). Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word frequency. Perception Psychophysics, 40(6), 431–439.PubMedCrossRef

Iordan, M. C., Greene, M. R., Beck, D. M., & Li, F. (2015). Basic Level Category Structure Emerges Gradually across Human Ventral Visual Cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(7), 1427–1446.PubMedCrossRef

James, T. (1975). The role of semantic information in lexical decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 130–136.

Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M. A., & Kosslyn, S. M. (1984). Pictures and names: Making the connection. Cognitive Psychology, 16(2), 243–275.PubMedCrossRef

Joseph, A. W., & Murugesh, R. (2020). Potential eye tracking metrics and indicators to measure cognitive load in human-computer interaction research. Journal of Scientific Research, 64(1), 168–175. https://doi.org/10.37398/JSR.2020.640137CrossRef

Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1993). The intensity dimension of thought: Pupillometric indices of sentence processing. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/revue Canadienne De Psychologie Expérimentale, 47(2), 310.PubMedCrossRef

Kenneth, I. F., & Susan, M. C. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal Verbal Learning Verbal Behavior., 12(6), 635.

Khawaji, A., Zhou, J., Chen, F., & Marcus, N. (2015). Using galvanic skin response (GSR) to measure trust and cognitive load in the text-chat environment. In M. Din (Ed.), Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Korea: Seoul.

Kiefer, M., & Pulvermüller, F. (2012). Conceptual representations in mind and brain: Theoretical developments, current evidence and future directions. Cortex, 48(7), 805–825.PubMedCrossRef

Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., & Raney, G. E. (2001). An eye movement study of insight problem solving. Memory Cognition, 29(7), 1000–1009.PubMedCrossRef

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press.

Li, F. (2008). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. Peking University Press.

Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. A. (2009). Bilingual lexical access in context: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 381.PubMed

Mack, M. L., & Palmeri, T. J. (2011). The timing of visual object categorization. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 165.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Mack, M. L., & Palmeri, T. J. (2015). The dynamics of categorization: Unraveling rapid categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(3), 551.PubMedCrossRef

Mack, M. L., Wong, A. C. N., Gauthier, I., Tanaka, J. W., & Palmeri, T. J. (2009). Time course of visual object categorization: Fastest does not necessarily mean first. Vision Research, 49(15), 1961–1968.PubMedCrossRef

Markman, B., & Edward, W. (1997). Similar and different: The differentiation of basic-level categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(1), 54–70.

Morrison, M., & Ellis, W. (2000). Real age of acquisition effects in word naming and lexical decision. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 167–180.PubMedCrossRef

Mulder, J. (1992). Measurement and analysis methods of heart rate and respiration for use in applied environments. Biological Psychology, 34(2–3), 205–236.PubMedCrossRef

Murphy, L., & Brownell, H. (1985). Category differentiation in object recognition: Typicality constraints on the basic category advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 70–84.PubMed

Pass, C., & Merrienborer, V. (1994a). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 351–371.CrossRef

Pass, C., & Merrienborer, V. (1994b). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122–133.CrossRef

Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4(3), 328–350.CrossRef

Rosch, E. (1988). Principles of categorization. Cognit Cate., 22, 312–322.

Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categorie. Cognit Psychol, 8, 382–439.CrossRef

Rubenstein, H., Garfield, L., & Millikan, J. A. (1970). Homographic entries in the internal lexicon. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behave, 9(5), 487–494.CrossRef

Ryu, K., & Myung, R. (2005). Evaluation of mental workload with a combined measure based on physiological indices during a dual task of tracking and mental arithmetic. Inter J Indust Ergon, 35(11), 991–1009.CrossRef

Schwanenfl, J., Harnishfeger, K., & Stowe, W. (1988). Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 499–520.CrossRef

Solomon, R. L., & Howes, D. H. (1951). Word frequency, personal values, and visual duration thresholds. Psychological Review, 58(4), 256.PubMedCrossRef

Taniguchi, K., Kuraguchi, K., Takano, Y., & Itakura, S. (2020). Object Categorization Processing Differs According to Category Level: Comparing Visual Information Between the Basic and Superordinate Levels. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 501–501.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London, England: Pearson Education Limited.

Wang, Y., & Li, H. (2003). Prototype theory and differences of word-formation between English and Chinese. Foreign Language and Literature, 3, 135–140.

Wilson, F. (2002). An analysis of mental workload in pilots during flight using multiple psychophysiological measures. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 12(1), 3–18.CrossRef

Wittgenstein, J. J. L. (1953). Philosophical Investigation. Basil Balckwell.

Yan, G. L., Zhang, L. L., & Lang, R. (2008). The perceptual span of Chinese undergraduates in reading English. Psychological Research, 1(2), 80–85.

Yan, G., Jianping, X., Chuanli, Z., Lili, Y., Lei, C., & Xuejun, B. (2013). Review of eye-movement measures in reading research. Advances in Psychological Science, 21(04), 589–605.CrossRef

Zagermann, J., Pfeil, U., & Reiterer, H. (2016). Measuring cognitive load using eye tracking technology in visual computing. Beyond Time Errors Novel Eva Method Visual. https://doi.org/10.1145/2993901.2993908CrossRef

Zagermann, J., Pfeil, U., & Reiterer, H. (2018). Studying Eye Movements as a Basis for Measuring Cognitive Load. Ext Abs Conf Human Factors Comput Syst. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3188628CrossRef

Zhao, Y. (2000). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

Titel: A comparative study of the cognitive load of basic-level category, superordinate category and subordinate category
Auteurs: Min Ji
Chuanwei Luo
Jiaxin Ren
Yixin Yang
Publicatiedatum: 02-02-2023
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 7/2023
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-023-01799-8

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2023

Manipulating free will beliefs using online video games

Working memory load impairs transfer learning in human adults

The effect of age on task switching: updated and extended meta-analyses

Imagine to automatize: automatization of stimulus–response coupling after action imagery practice in implicit sequence learning

Visuospatial working memory abilities in children analyzed by the bricks game task (BGT)

Attentional prioritisation and facilitation for similar stimuli in visual working memory