Gender Word Semantic Satiation Inhibits Facial Gender Information Processing
Evidence From Behavior and Event-Related Potentials
Abstract
Abstract. In order to explore the time course of the influence of gender words semantic satiation on facial gender information processing, the semantic satiation paradigm was used to induce semantic satiation by presenting Chinese gender words “男, 女 (Male, Female)” for a long duration (25 s), with conjunction words “及(And), 且(Moreover)” served as the baseline (the Chinese words and their English translations do not completely equal in terms of pronunciation, form, and sense). Participants were asked to judge whether the two simultaneously presented faces (Experiment 1) or two successively presented faces (Experiment 2) were of the same gender. The results of Experiment 1 showed that the response time in semantic satiation condition was significantly longer than that of the baseline condition. The event-related potential (ERP) results of Experiment 2 showed that the peak amplitude of P1 component in semantic satiation condition was significantly smaller than that of the baseline condition in the early stage of face processing; N170, a specific component of face perception, in semantic satiation condition was significantly larger than that of the baseline condition. The average amplitude of LPC in semantic satiation condition was significantly smaller than that of the baseline condition. This study shows that facial gender information processing is affected by its semantic contextual information. The inhibition effect of gender word semantic satiation on facial gender information processing starts at the attention orientation stage, then continues to the face structural encoding stage, and eventually ends at the advanced cognitive response stage.
References
2011). Conscious awareness is necessary for processing race and gender information from faces. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(2), 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.08.004
(2004). Time course and specificity of event-related potentials to emotional expressions. Neuroreport, 15(1), 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200401190-00041
(2011). The automaticity of emotional face-context integration. Emotion, 11(6), 1406–1414. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023578
(2007). Language as context for the perception of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(8), 327–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.003
(2011). Context in emotion perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(5), 286–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411422522
(2012). P1 and beyond: Functional separation of multiple emotion effects in word recognition. Psychophysiology, 49(7), 959–969. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01381.x
(1996). Electrophysiological studies of face perception in humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8(6), 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1996.8.6.551
(2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 6(3), 242–261. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0603_8
(1992). Remembering pictures: Pleasure and arousal in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory & Cognition, 18(2), 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.18.2.379
(1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 77(3), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1986.tb02199.x
(2000). Brain potentials in affective picture processing: Covariation with autonomic arousal and affective report. Biological Psychology, 52(2), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-0511(99)00044-7
(2014). The effect of middle age on the late positive component of the auditory event-related potential. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 25(2), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.25.2.8
(2001). Differential attentional guidance by unattended faces expressing positive and negative emotion. Perception & Psychophysics, 63(6), 1004–1013. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194519
(2000). Event-related brain potentials distinguish processing stages involved in face perception and recognition. Clinical Neurophysiology, 111(4), 694–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1388-2457(99)00285-0
(1971). Review of the measurement of semantic satiation. Psychological Bulletin, 75(5), 330–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031001
(2001). Scalp electrode impedance, infection risk, and EEG data quality. Clinical Neurophysiology, 112(3), 536–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1388-2457(00)00533-2
(2006). Event-related potential studies of language and emotion: Words, phrases, and task effects. Progress in Brain Research, 156, 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(06)56009-1
(2010). The face-sensitive N170 encodes social category information. Neuroreport, 21(1), 24–28. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e3283320d54
(2009). Early and late temporo-spatial effects of contextual interference during perception of facial affect. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 74(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.05.010
(2012). Emotion words shape emotion percepts. Emotion, 12(2), 314–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026007
(2011). Revision of the Chinese facial affective picture system. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 25(1), 40–46. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-6729.2011.01.011
(2009). The time course of repetition effects for familiar faces and objects: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1248, 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2008.10.069
(1998). Sensory gain control (amplification) as a mechanism of selective attention: Electrophysiological and neuroimaging evidence. Philosophical Transactions Biological Sciences, 353(1373), 1257–1270. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1998.0281
(2005). The influence of processing objectives on the perception of faces: An ERP study of race and gender perception. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.3758/cabn.5.1.21
(2016). Comparison of affective and semantic priming in different SOA. Cognitive Processing, 17(4), 357–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-016-0771-8
(1996). Dissimilar age influences on two ERP waveforms (LPC and N400) reflecting semantic context effect. Cognitive Brain Research, 4(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/0926-6410(96)00022-5
(1969). Semantic satiation as a function of duration of repetition and initial meaning intensity. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 8(1), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80008-3
(2013). Is it a face of a woman or a man? Visual mismatch negativity is sensitive to gender category. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, Article 532. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00532
(2000). On the locus of the semantic satiation effect: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Memory & Cognition, 28(8), 1366–1377. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03211837
(2009). Electrophysiology reveals semantic priming at a short SOA irrespective of depth of prime processing. Neuroscience Letters, 453(2), 107–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2009.02.013
(1961). Verbal satiation and changes in the intensity of meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(6), 376–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045624
(2000). Satiation in name and face recognition. Memory & Cognition, 28(5), 783–788. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03198413
(2006). Language and the perception of emotion. Emotion, 6(1), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.6.1.125
(2013). What’s in a word? Language constructs emotion perception. Emotion Review, 5(1), 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912451351
(2017). Symmetrical and asymmetrical interactions between facial expressions and gender information in face perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1383. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01383
(1997). On the activation of social stereotypes: The moderating role of processing objectives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(5), 471–489. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1997.1328
(2019). Rapid and automatic discrimination between facial expressions in the human brain. Neuropsychologia, 129, 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.03.006
(2013). Brain mechanisms for emotional influences on perception and attention: What is magic and what is not. Biological Psychology, 92(3), 492–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.02.007
(2018). Same-gender distractors are not so easy to reject: ERP evidence of gender categorization. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 18(5), 825–836. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-018-0607-3
(2004). Face-gender discrimination is possible in the near-absence of attention. Journal of Vision, 4(2), 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1167/4.2.4
(1998). Judging words at face value: Interference in a word processing task reveals automatic processing of affective facial expressions. Cognition & Emotion, 12(6), 755–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999398379420
(2008). Perceiving age and gender in unfamiliar faces: Brain potential evidence for implicit and explicit person categorization. Psychophysiology, 45(6), 957–969. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00707.x
(2012). Faces in context: A review and systematization of contextual influences on affective face processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 471. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00471
(2017). Facial expressions in context: Electrophysiological correlates of the emotional congruency of facial expressions and background scenes. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 2175. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02175
(