Domain effects in lexical development: learning words for foods and toys

We investigated 3-year-olds’ and adults’ use of domain cues in learning words for solid and nonsolid material entities. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants heard a novel neutral noun (e.g., “my X”) for a standard solid or nonsolid entity described as either a toy or a food. They then were asked to extend the word to one of two other entities. Both options matched the standard in solidity; but one differed from it in an object-relevant property (shape) and the other in a substance-relevant property (color, texture, or smell). Both children and adults were more likely to select the same-shaped entity if the standard was (1) solid than if it was nonsolid, and (2) described as a toy than if it was described as a food. Their interpretations of novel words for material entities were thus affected not only by perceptual information (about solidity) but also by conceptual information (about domain). In Experiment 3, the novel noun was presented in a syntactic context that suggested the solid entity should be interpreted as an object (e.g., “an X”) and that the nonsolid entity should be interpreted as a substance (e.g., “some X”). For adults, these changes largely eliminated the effect of the entity’s domain (toy, food) on interpretation. We interpret these findings in terms of the proposal that domain cues, like solidity cues, furnish information about whether an entity’s structure should be thought of as arbitrary or nonarbitrary and, hence, about whether a word should be interpreted as naming an object or a substance construal.     

Inhibition of return following instructions to remember and forget.

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slowed responding to a target that appears in the same rather than in a different location as a preceding peripheral onset cue. This study examined IOR as a function of whether the peripheral onset cue was a word that participants were directed to remember or forget. Using a modified item-method directed forgetting paradigm, words appeared one at a time to the left or right, followed by a remember or forget instruction. A target dot was then presented either in the same peripheral location as the preceding word or in a different location; participants made a speeded response to localize this target. Confirming compliance with the memory instructions, recall tests that alternated with blocks of IOR trials (Experiment 1) revealed few intrusions of to-be-forgotten words, and a final recognition test (Experiments 1 and 3) revealed more hits for to-be-remembered words than for to-be-forgotten words. Reaction times to the target dot revealed greater magnitude IOR following to-be-forgotten words than following to-be-remembered words (Experiments 1 and 3). Moreover, when compared to baseline IOR values (Experiment 2), it appeared that this difference resulted from a magnification of IOR following forget instructions and a reduction in IOR following remember instructions. These results demonstrate the usefulness of IOR as an index of memorial processes and suggest that attentional orienting may play a role in the remembering and forgetting of words presented in peripheral visual locations.     

The interplay of stop signal inhibition and inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slower responding to a stimulus that appears in the same rather than a different location as that of a preceding stimulus. The goal of the present study was to examine the relationship between IOR and stop signal inhibition. Participants were presented with two stimuli (S1 and S2) on each trial. On half of the trials (go trials), participants were required to make a speeded button-press response to report the location of S1; on the other half of trials (stop trials), they were required to cancel the response to S1, as indicated by the appearance of a stop signal at a variable delay (stop signal delay, SSD) after the appearance of S1. Success in cancelling an S1 response varied directly as a function of the SSD: The longer the delay, the more difficult it was for participants to cancel the prepared response. We examined the magnitude of IOR in the S2 reaction times as a function of whether participants made a correct go response to S1, made an erroneous non-cancelled response to S1, or successfully cancelled a response to S1. Our results indicated that the presentation of a stop signal increased the magnitude of IOR, even when the S1 response was not successfully cancelled. However, this was true only when the to-be-cancelled response involved the same effectors as the response used to reveal IOR. These results suggest that there may be a motor component to IOR that is sensitive to the same inhibitory processes that are used to cancel responses in a stop signal paradigm.