Skip to main content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 2/2016

27-03-2015 | Original Article

The role of sensory-motor modality compatibility in language processing

Auteurs: Simone Schaeffner, Iring Koch, Andrea M. Philipp

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 2/2016

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Language processing requires the combination of compatible (auditory-vocal and visual-manual) or incompatible (auditory-manual and visual-vocal) sensory-motor modalities, and switching between these sensory-motor modality combinations is very common in every-day life. Sensory-motor modality compatibility is defined as the similarity of stimulus modality and the modality of response-related sensory consequences. We investigated the influence of sensory-motor modality compatibility during performing language-related cognitive operations on different linguistic levels. More specifically, we used a variant of the task-switching paradigm, in which participants had to switch between compatible or between incompatible sensory-motor modality combinations during a verbal semantic categorization (Experiment 1) or during a word-form decision (Experiment 2). The data show higher switch costs (i.e., higher reaction times and error rates in switch trials compared to repetition trials) in incompatible sensory-motor modality combinations than in compatible sensory-motor modality combinations. This was true for every language-related cognitive operation, regardless of the individual linguistic level. Taken together, the present study demonstrates that sensory-motor modality compatibility plays an important role in modality switching during language processing.
Literatuur
go back to reference Badets, A., Koch, I., & Philipp, A. M. (2014). A review of ideomotor approaches to perception, cognition, action, and language: advancing a cultural recycling hypothesis. Psychological Research, 1–15. Badets, A., Koch, I., & Philipp, A. M. (2014). A review of ideomotor approaches to perception, cognition, action, and language: advancing a cultural recycling hypothesis. Psychological Research, 1–15.
go back to reference Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660. PubMed Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660. PubMed
go back to reference Borghi, A. M., & Pecher, D. (2011). Introduction to the special topic embodied and grounded cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 187. PubMedCentralPubMed Borghi, A. M., & Pecher, D. (2011). Introduction to the special topic embodied and grounded cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 187. PubMedCentralPubMed
go back to reference Collins, J., Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Coulson, S. (2011). Modality switching in a property verification task: an ERP study of what happens when candles flicker after high heels click. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 10. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Collins, J., Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Coulson, S. (2011). Modality switching in a property verification task: an ERP study of what happens when candles flicker after high heels click. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 10. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Greenwald, A. G. (1972). On doing two things at once: Time sharing as a function of ideomotor compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 52–57. CrossRefPubMed Greenwald, A. G. (1972). On doing two things at once: Time sharing as a function of ideomotor compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 52–57. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Hald, L. A., Marshall, J. A., Janssen, D. P., & Garnham, A. (2011). Switching modalities in a sentence verification task: ERP evidence for embodied language processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 93. CrossRef Hald, L. A., Marshall, J. A., Janssen, D. P., & Garnham, A. (2011). Switching modalities in a sentence verification task: ERP evidence for embodied language processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 93. CrossRef
go back to reference Hazeltine, E., Ruthruff, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 291–345. CrossRefPubMed Hazeltine, E., Ruthruff, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 291–345. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Hickok, G., Houde, J., & Rong, F. (2011). Sensorimotor integration in speech processing: Computational basis and neural organization. Neuron, 69, 407–422. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Hickok, G., Houde, J., & Rong, F. (2011). Sensorimotor integration in speech processing: Computational basis and neural organization. Neuron, 69, 407–422. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Howard, D., & Franklin, S. (1988). Missing the meaning? A cognitive neuropsychological study of processing of words by an aphasic patient. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Howard, D., & Franklin, S. (1988). Missing the meaning? A cognitive neuropsychological study of processing of words by an aphasic patient. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
go back to reference International Phonetic Association. (1999). Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. International Phonetic Association. (1999). Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
go back to reference Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—a review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874. CrossRefPubMed Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—a review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: a review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 1–14. CrossRef Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: a review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 1–14. CrossRef
go back to reference Lukas, S., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Switching attention between modalities: further evidence for visual dominance. Psychological Research, 74, 255–267. CrossRefPubMed Lukas, S., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Switching attention between modalities: further evidence for visual dominance. Psychological Research, 74, 255–267. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Meiran, N. (2010). Task switching: Mechanisms underlying rigid vs. flexible self control. In: Hassin, R., Ochsner, K., & Trope Y. (Eds.), Self control in society, mind, and brain (pp. 202–220). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Meiran, N. (2010). Task switching: Mechanisms underlying rigid vs. flexible self control. In: Hassin, R., Ochsner, K., & Trope Y. (Eds.), Self control in society, mind, and brain (pp. 202–220). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Morton, J. (1969). The interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review, 76, 165–178. CrossRef Morton, J. (1969). The interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review, 76, 165–178. CrossRef
go back to reference Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science, 14, 119–124. CrossRefPubMed Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science, 14, 119–124. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Price, C. J. (2012). A review and synthesis of the first 20 years of PET and fMRI studies of heard speech, spoken language and reading. Neuroimage, 62, 816–847. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Price, C. J. (2012). A review and synthesis of the first 20 years of PET and fMRI studies of heard speech, spoken language and reading. Neuroimage, 62, 816–847. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Pulvermüller, F., & Fadiga, L. (2010). Active perception: sensorimotor circuits as a cortical basis for language. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, 351–360. CrossRefPubMed Pulvermüller, F., & Fadiga, L. (2010). Active perception: sensorimotor circuits as a cortical basis for language. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, 351–360. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Raij, T., Uutela, K., & Hari, R. (2000). Audiovisual integration of letters in the human brain. Neuron, 28, 617–625. CrossRefPubMed Raij, T., Uutela, K., & Hari, R. (2000). Audiovisual integration of letters in the human brain. Neuron, 28, 617–625. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Spence, C., Nicholls, M. E., & Driver, J. (2001). The cost of expecting events in the wrong sensory modality. Perception and Psychophysics, 63, 330–336. CrossRefPubMed Spence, C., Nicholls, M. E., & Driver, J. (2001). The cost of expecting events in the wrong sensory modality. Perception and Psychophysics, 63, 330–336. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2010). Central cross-talk in task switching: Evidence from manipulating input-output modality compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1075–1081. CrossRefPubMed Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2010). Central cross-talk in task switching: Evidence from manipulating input-output modality compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1075–1081. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2011). The role of input–output modality compatibility in task switching. Psychological Research, 75, 491–498. CrossRefPubMed Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2011). The role of input–output modality compatibility in task switching. Psychological Research, 75, 491–498. CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 13, 601–626. CrossRef Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 13, 601–626. CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
The role of sensory-motor modality compatibility in language processing
Auteurs
Simone Schaeffner
Iring Koch
Andrea M. Philipp
Publicatiedatum
27-03-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 2/2016
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0661-1

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2016

Psychological Research 2/2016 Naar de uitgave