Citation
EXECUTIVE FUNCTION ADAPTATION AND SYNTACTIC PRIMING_Amlap18_poster

Material Information

Title:
EXECUTIVE FUNCTION ADAPTATION AND SYNTACTIC PRIMING_Amlap18_poster
Creator:
Kaan, Edith
Conference:
AMLAP 2018
Language:
English
Physical Description:
Conference Papers

Notes

Abstract:
EXECUTIVE FUNCTION ADAPTATION AND SYNTACTIC PRIMING. Edith Kaan, Emma Leone and Yucheng Liu
Acquisition:
Collected for University of Florida's Institutional Repository by the UFIR Self-Submittal tool. Submitted by Edith Kaan.
General Note:
Poster presented at the AMLAP 2018 conference, Berlin.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All rights reserved by the submitter.

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

printed by www.postersession.com Executive function adaptation and syntactic primingEdith Kaan, Emma Leone & YuchengLiu University of Florida Executive Function (EF) adaptation: after a hard co gnitive control trial, other tasks become easier, including language tasks. Hsu and Novick (2016): after incongruent compared t o congruent Stroop trials, participants are better at recovering from PP attachment garden paths ( Put the frog on the napkinonto the box in which on the napkin needs to be revised from a modifier of frog to the goal of put ). INTRODUCTION DISCUSSION AND CAVEATS • Predictions were not borne out: No effects of EF adaptation at the prime.If anything, the RR priming effect is smaller after incongruent than congruent Stroop trials. No strong evidence for EF adaptation affecting the inhibition of the initial MC reading. • Alternative explanation: An incongruent Stroop leads to sustained monitoring resulting in slow-down of reading at points of di sambiguation. • Caveat: Our Stroop manipulation may not have been effective : RTs for congruent “NO” trials were longer than fo r incongruent trials (Table 1). The “congruent” trials may therefore not have differed much from incongruent trials in terms of EF engagem ent. We are currently running a study with a more traditional 1-word Stroop task: RED vs. BLUE Question 1. Can we replicate the EF adaptation effect with a di fferent syntactic structure (reduced relative claus es)? If so, reduced relatives (RRs) will be read more qu ickly at the point of disambiguation when the sentence is preceded by an incongruent vs. congruen t Stroop task. Question 2. Does EF adaptation imply inhibition of the initial reading, that is, the main clause (MC) reading in t he case of RR/MC ambiguities? If so, when the RR prime sentence is preceded by an incongruent vs. congruent Stroop trial, a following RR/MC sentence (target sentence) will be processed… 2a … even faster at the point of disambiguation towar ds an RR (since an MC reading may not be even considered) larger RR to RR priming effect 2b … slower at the point of disambiguation towards an MC (since the inhibition of the MC structure needs to be undone) QUESTIONS Participants: 56 monolingually raised speakers of American Englis h Aged 18-35 years oldNo history of dyslexia or other problems related to language or reading Materials: 4 prime-target conditions, see example sentences be low 18 prime-target pairs per experimental condition, L atin Squared 72 fillers (distractor items, some without Stroop, some with MC to balance number of MCs and RRs in the study) Yes/No comprehension questions after 14% of the sen tences (never after the prime in critical trials) Task: Self-paced reading paradigm (word-by-word non-cumul ative moving window) Interleaved with 2-word Stroop trials: Instruction: Does the meaning of the first word mat ch the color of the second? Congruent Stroop: BLUE BLUE (Yes) ; BLUE RED (No) Incongruent Stroop: BLUE RED (Yes) ; BLUE BLUE (No) METHODS EXAMPLE TRIAL (1) Congruent Stroop trial; RR prime; RR target Stroop : BLUE BLUE (Answer: Yes) Prime : The | students | helped | by | the | counselor | were | grateful | for | the | aid. Target : The | surgeons | helped | by | the | resident | were | exhausted | by | the | operation. (2) Incongruent Stroop trial; RR prime; RR target Stroop: BLUE RED (Answer: Yes) Prime : The | students | helped | by | the | counselor | were | grateful | for | the | aid. Target : The | surgeons | helped | by | the | resident | were | exhausted | by | the | operation. (3) Congruent Stroop trial; RR prime; MC target Stroop: BLUE RED (Answer: No) Prime : The | students | helped | by | the | counselor | were | grateful | for | the | aid. Target : The | surgeons | helped | the | resident | revive | the | dying | man | on | the | cot. (4) Incongruent Stroop trial; RR prime; MC target Stroop: BLUE BLUE (Answer: No) Prime : The | students | helped | by | the | counselor | were | grateful | for | the | aid. Target : The | surgeons | helped | the | resident | revive | the | dying | man | on | the | cot. EXAMPLE SENTENCES RESULTS Q1: Are RR primes affected by preceding Stroop congruency? Fig 2: No + BLUE RED YN Stroop* Prime Target* Question* Fixation* Figure 1. Illustration of an experimental trial (* means option al) + The-----------------------Fixation Fixation Next Trial… Fixation* -----student--------------+ The------------------------surgeons-------------+ Did the surgeons work alone? YN Self-paced Self-paced Q2a: priming effect(RR primes-RR targets)@ “by the resident”larger after incongruent than congruent Stroop? Q1: RR primes @ “by the N” readfaster after incongruent than congruent Stroop? Stroop Condition ACC RT (msec) Congruent-Yes 1.001013 Congruent-No 0.99 1276 Incongruent-Yes 0.981193 Incongruent-No 0.981203 Table 1: results from Stroop task Q2a: Is the RR Priming effect (RR primes vs. targets) modulated by preceding Stroop congruency? Fig 3: Yes, but marginal: Priming x Stroop at “by” b=10.5, SE=6.2, T= 1.7, p<.09), butthe priming effect is larger for trials following congruent than incongruent Stroop! Q2b: Are the MC targets affected by preceding Stroop congruency? Fig 4: Yes, but marginally (at the noun “residents”, b = 7.9, SE = 4.6, T= 1.7, p < .09); the MC targets are read slower following incongruentthan congruent Stroop Q2b: MC targets @NP “the resident” read slower after incongruent than congruent Stroop? Contact: kaan@ufl.edu