First Language Attrition Induces Changes in Online Morphosyntactic Processing and Re‐Analysis: An ERP Study of Number Agreement in Complex Italian Sentences

First language (L1) attrition in adulthood offers new insight on neuroplasticity and the role of language experience in shaping neurocognitive responses to language. Attriters are multilinguals for whom advancing L2 proficiency comes at the cost of the L1, as they experience a shift in exposure and dominance (e.g., due to immigration). To date, the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying L1 attrition are largely unexplored. Using event‐related potentials (ERPs), we examined L1‐Italian grammatical processing in 24 attriters and 30 Italian native‐controls. We assessed whether (a) attriters differed from non‐attriting native speakers in their online detection and re‐analysis/repair of number agreement violations, and whether (b) differences in processing were modulated by L1‐proficiency. To test both local and non‐local agreement violations, we manipulated agreement between three inflected constituents and examined ERP responses on two of these (subject, verb , modifier ). Our findings revealed group differences in amplitude, scalp distribution, and duration of LAN/N400 + P600 effects. We discuss these differences as reflecting influence of attriters’ L2‐English, as well as shallower online sentence repair processes than in non‐attriting native speakers. ERP responses were also predicted by L1‐Italian proficiency scores, with smaller N400/P600 amplitudes in lower proficiency individuals. Proficiency only modulated P600 amplitude between 650 and 900 ms, whereas the late P600 (beyond 900 ms) depended on group membership and amount of L1 exposure within attriters. Our study is the first to show qualitative and quantitative differences in ERP responses in attriters compared to non‐attriting native speakers. Our results also emphasize that proficiency predicts language processing profiles, even in native‐speakers, and that the P600 should not be considered a monolithic component.     

Promoting the emergence of advanced knowledge: A review of peak relational training system: Direct training module by Mark R. Dixon

Mark Dixon's (2014) manual, PEAK Relational Training System: Direct Training Module, proposes a novel approach to manualized evaluation and curriculum development. Dixon's PEAK system, introduced in the book as the first of four modules, translates derived relational responding methodology into a new verbal‐behavior approach. The PEAK system is firmly rooted in the basic, conceptual, and applied behavior‐analytic tradition; however, it differs substantially from the competition in its unique application of relational frame theory to produce efficient learning. The manual's accessible nature renders it a viable product for many users and readers. The growing empirical support for PEAK’s efficacy, usability, and psychometrics is impressive and provides a robust empirical basis for the system that is not described within the pages of the manual. Behavior analysts may shy away from a manualized system that explicitly omits discussion of scholarship and empirical bases but would be remiss in doing so, given the potential of PEAK to revolutionize the way clinicians and parents apply the verbal behavior approach.     

Control by reinforcers across time and space: A review of recent choice research

Reinforcers affect behavior. A fundamental assumption has been that reinforcers strengthen the behavior they follow, and that this strengthening may be context‐specific (stimulus control). Less frequently discussed, but just as evident, is the observation that reinforcers have discriminative properties that also guide behavior. We review findings from recent research that approaches choice using nontraditional procedures, with a particular focus on how choice is affected by reinforcers, by time since reinforcers, and by recent sequences of reinforcers. We also discuss how conclusions about these results are impacted by the choice of measurement level and display. Clearly, reinforcers as traditionally considered are conditionally phylogenetically important to animals. However, their effects on behavior may be solely discriminative, and contingent reinforcers may not strengthen behavior. Rather, phylogenetically important stimuli constitute a part of a correlated compound stimulus context consisting of stimuli arising from the organism, from behavior, and from physiologically detected environmental stimuli. Thus, the three‐term contingency may be seen, along with organismic state, as a correlation of stimuli. We suggest that organisms may be seen as natural stimulus‐correlation detectors so that behavioral change affects the overall correlation and directs the organism toward currently appetitive goals and away from potential aversive goals. As a general conclusion, both historical and recent choice research supports the idea that stimulus control, not reinforcer control, may be fundamental.     

Changes in Saccadic and Manual Motor Control After Ocular Smooth Pursuit Adaptive Modifications

The gain of ocular smooth pursuit responses can be adaptively modified under certain circumstances. Evidence that these modifications are caused, at least partly, by changes at a sensory level comes from the fact that subsequent manual tracking movements generated during visual fixation are also modified in a similar manner. The question addressed in the present experiment was whether the modifications are constrained specifically to responses such as these, which are driven by retinal image motion, or whether they can also influence movements that make use of retinal image position. This was accomplished by comparing manual and oculomotor responses to step changes in target position before and after smooth pursuit adaptation. The results showed that, as with manual tracking movements, these responses were also modified by the adaptive procedure, although to a lesser extent. In particular, following a 20-min period in which subjects (N = 4) were submitted to a procedure designed to increase the gain of the smooth pursuit system, manual step tracking movements and ocular saccades displayed larger amplitudes than those shown prior to the adaptation. In addition, these gain changes were accompanied by appropriate alterations in response kinematics. Taken together, these results suggest that the mechanisms responsible for adaptive modifications in the smooth pursuit system are also able to more generally influence the processing of visuospatial information. The possible neurophysiological substrate underlying these mechanisms is discussed.     

What's parenting got to do with it: emotional autonomy and brain and behavioral responses to emotional conflict in children and adolescents

Healthy parenting may be protective against the development of emotional psychopathology, particularly for children reared in stressful environments. Little is known, however, about the brain and behavioral mechanisms underlying this association, particularly during childhood and adolescence, when emotional disorders frequently emerge. Here, we demonstrate that psychological control, a parenting strategy known to limit socioemotional development in children, is associated with altered brain and behavioral responses to emotional conflict in 27 at‐risk (urban, lower income) youth, ages 9–16. In particular, youth reporting higher parental psychological control demonstrated lower activity in the left anterior insula, a brain area involved in emotion conflict processing, and submitted faster but less accurate behavioral responses—possibly reflecting an avoidant pattern. Effects were not replicated for parental care, and did not generalize to an analogous nonemotional conflict task. We also find evidence that behavioral responses to emotional conflict bridge the previously reported link between parental overcontrol and anxiety in children. Effects of psychological control may reflect a parenting style that limits opportunities to practice self‐regulation when faced with emotionally charged situations. Results support the notion that parenting strategies that facilitate appropriate amounts of socioemotional competence and autonomy in children may be protective against social and emotional difficulties.     

Be aware of the rifle but do not forget the stench: differential effects of fear and disgust on lexical processing and memory

The aim of this study was to investigate the role of discrete emotions in lexical processing and memory, focusing on disgust and fear. We compared neutral words to disgust-related words and fear-related words in three experiments. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants performed a lexical decision task (LDT), and in Experiment 3 an affective categorisation task. These tasks were followed by an unexpected memory task. The results of the LDT experiments showed slower reaction times for both types of negative words with respect to neutral words, plus a higher percentage of errors, this being more consistent for fear-related words (Experiments 1 and 2) than for disgust-related words (Experiment 2). Furthermore, only disgusting words exhibited a higher recall accuracy than neutral words in the memory task. Moreover, the advantage in memory for disgusting words disappeared when participants carried out an affective categorisation task during encoding (Experiment 3), suggesting that the superiority in memory for disgusting words observed in Experiments 1 and 2 could be due to greater elaborative processing. Taken together, these findings point to the relevance of discrete emotions in explaining the effects of the emotional content on lexical processing and memory.     

高校多媒体教学环境下的教-学-学习绩效关系的建模与分析

本文是在先前建立的多媒体教学环境下教师授课、学生学习和学习绩效的3个因素结构模型基础上,采用路径建模技术,建立了多媒体教学环境下教一学一学习绩效关系模型。基于对该路径模型的分析,获得如下结论：（1）多媒体教学中影响因素的主导作用是沿着学习者认知加工过程中的信息流而展开的;（2）对于学生在课堂中的信息加工,影响最大的因素是教师授课时对学生的能力培养,影响为其次的因素是教师的授课技术;（3）课件的良好界面信息设计对学生的知识掌握起重要作用;（4）诸如授课速度过快、信息量过大等多媒体教学中的易现问题会增加学生的外在认知负荷而降低学习效果;（5）在多媒体教学中,教师与学生都要注意学生学习风格来更好地进行教学或学习。     

Speed of emotional information processing and emotional intelligence

The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between the speed of emotional information processing and emotional intelligence (EI). To evaluate individual differences in the speed of emotional information processing, a recognition memory task consisted of two subtests similar in design but differing in the emotionality of the stimuli. The first subtest required judgment about whether an emotional facial expression in the test face was identical to one of the four emotional expressions of the same individual previously presented. The second subtest required deciding whether the test face with a neutral emotional expression was identical to one of the four neutral faces of different individuals previously presented. Mean response latencies were calculated for “Yes” and “No” responses. All latencies were correlated with other measures of processing speed such as discrimination time and time of figure recognition. However, the emotional expression recognition subtest was hypothesized to require the processing of emotional information in addition to that of facial identity. Latencies in this subtest were longer than those in the face recognition subtest. To obtain a measure of the additional processing that was called for by the emotionality of the stimuli, a subtraction method and regression analysis were employed. In both cases, measures calculated for “No” responses were related to ability EI, as assessed via a self‐report questionnaire. According to structural equation modeling, there was a moderately negative association between latent EI and the latency of “No” responses in the subtest with emotional stimuli. These relationships were not observed for “Yes” responses in the same subtest or for responses in the subtest with neutral face stimuli. Although the differences between “Yes” and “No” responses in their associations with EI require further investigation, the results suggest that, in general, individuals with higher EI are also more efficient in the processing of emotional information.     

THE EFFECTS OF THE QUESTION “WHAT IS THIS?” ON TACT-TRAINING OUTCOMES OF CHILDREN WITH AUTISM

Tact training is a common element of many habilitative programs for individuals with developmental disabilities. A commonly recommended practice is to include a supplemental question (e.g., “What is this?”) during training trials for tacts of objects. However, the supplemental question is not a defining feature of the tact relation, and prior research suggests that its inclusion might sometimes impede tact acquisition. The present study compared tact training with and without the supplemental question in terms of acquisition and maintenance. Two of 4 children with autism acquired tacts more efficiently in the object-only condition; the remaining 2 children acquired tacts more efficiently in the object + question condition. During maintenance tests in the absence of the supplemental question, all participants emitted tacts at end-of-training levels across conditions with no differential effect observed between training conditions.Key words: autism, language training, stimulus control, tacts, verbal behaviorSkinner (1957) defined the tact as a response “evoked by a particular object or event or property of an object or event” (p. 82) and considered it to be one of the most important verbal operants. Tacts are maintained by generalized social reinforcement and, thus, they are central to many social interactions. For example, the tact “That cloud looks like a horse” (under the control of a visual stimulus) could evoke a short verbal interaction about the sky or horses. The tact “My tummy hurts” (under the control of an interoceptive stimulus) could evoke soothing statements from a parent. A child who tacts “doggie” in the presence of a cat likely would evoke a correction statement from an adult, further refining two stimulus classes (i.e., dog and cat). These examples illustrate that, despite their topographical differences, the tact relations share antecedent control by a nonverbal discriminative stimulus (S^D) and are maintained by generalized social reinforcement.In habilitative programs for individuals with language impairments, autism, and intellectual disabilities, tacts often are taught for objects (e.g., ball), object features (e.g., color, size, shape), activities (e.g., jumping), prepositions (e.g., between), and emotions (e.g., sad) among others. Although conceptualized differently among therapeutic approaches, the tact relation occupies a central position in many early-intervention curricula. For example, Lovaas (2003) and Leaf and McEachin (1999) describe these relations as expressive labels and recommend that they be taught early in language training using three-dimensional objects accompanied by the supplemental questions “What is it?” or “What''s this?” Alternatively, Sundberg and Partington (1998) explicitly refer to the relation as a tact and recommend beginning instruction by including the question “What is it?” before eventually fading the question. In addition to these clinical manuals, the use of supplemental questions during tact training has appeared in some empirical studies on tact or expressive-label training (e.g., Braam & Sundberg, 1991; Coleman & Stedman, 1974), but not others (e.g., Williams & Greer, 1993). Regardless of whether tact training initially includes supplemental questions prior to response opportunities, tacts ultimately should be emitted readily under the sole control of the nonverbal S^D as well as when it happens to be accompanied by a question.Conceptually, at least four potential problems could arise from introducing supplemental questions early and consistently in tact training. First, the acquired responses might not be emitted unless the question is posed (i.e., prompt dependence). This problem would lead to few spontaneous tacts occurring outside the explicit stimulus control of the training environment. Williams and Greer (1993) compared comprehensive language training conducted under the stimulus control specified in Skinner''s (1957) taxonomy of verbal behavior to a more traditional psycholinguistic perspective with supplemental questions and instructions embedded within trials. For all three adolescents with developmental disabilities, the targets taught from the verbal behavior perspective were maintained better in natural contexts than those taught from the psycholinguistic perspective. However, because data were not reported for each individual verbal operant, it is unclear what specific impact their tact-training procedures had on the outcomes.The second potential problem is that the supplemental question might acquire intraverbal control over early responses and interfere with the acquisition of subsequent tact targets. For example, Partington, Sundberg, Newhouse, and Spengler (1994) showed that the tact repertoire of a child with autism had been hindered by prior instruction during which she was asked “What is this?” while being shown an object. The supplemental question subsequently evoked previously acquired responses and blocked the ability of new nonverbal S^Ds (i.e., objects) to evoke new responses. Partington et al. then showed that new tacts were acquired by eliminating the supplemental question from instructional trials.The third potential problem is that learners might imitate part of or the entire supplemental question prior to emitting the target response (e.g., “What is it” → “What is it … ball.”). For example, Coleman and Stedman (1974) demonstrated that a 10-year-old girl with autism imitated the question “What is this?” while being taught to label stimuli depicted in color photographs. Such an outcome results in a socially awkward tact repertoire and requires additional intervention to remedy the problem.Finally, including supplemental questions during tact training might impede skill acquisition, perhaps via a combination of the problems described earlier. Sundberg, Endicott, and Eigenheer (2000) taught sign tacts to two young children with autism who had prior difficulty acquiring tacts. In one condition, the experimenter held up an object and asked, “What is that?” In the comparison condition, the experimenter intraverbally prompted the participant to “sign [object name]” in the presence of the object. Sundberg et al. demonstrated substantially more efficient tact acquisition under the sign-prompt condition than when the question “What is that?” was included in trials; the latter condition sometimes failed to produce mastery-level responding.Teaching an entire tact repertoire while including supplemental questions (e.g., “What is it?”) during training trials could produce a learner who is able to talk about his or her environment only when asked to do so with similar questions. To the extent that this is not a therapist''s clinical goal, teaching the tact under its proper controlling variables may eliminate such problems. Of course, inclusion of supplemental questions during the early phases of language training could be faded over time such that the target tact relation is left intact prior to the end of training (Sundberg & Partington, 1998). However, the aforementioned studies have documented problems with using supplemental questions during tact training. Given the ubiquity of tact training in habilitation programs, the numerous problems that may arise when supplemental questions are included in training trials, and the limited research on the topic, further investigation is warranted. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to compare directly the rate of acquisition and subsequent maintenance of tacts taught using only a nonverbal S^D (i.e., object only) with tacts taught using a question (“What is this?”) in conjunction with the nonverbal S^D (i.e., object + question). The present study extends earlier research by examining both acquisition and maintenance and by including individuals with no prior history of formal tact training.     

An evaluation of the stimulus equivalence paradigm to teach single-subject design to distance education students via blackboard

The purpose of the current study was to examine the degree to which instruction based on stimulus equivalence procedures could be used to teach single-subject design methodology to graduate-level professionals through a Web-based course management system known as Blackboard (see http://www.blackboard.com). Specifically, we used the stimulus equivalence paradigm to teach relations among the names, definitions, graphical representations of the designs, and two practical scenarios of when it would be appropriate to implement each design. Most participants demonstrated the emergence of untaught relations, and some participants showed generalization to novel vignettes and graphs. Relations largely were not maintained at follow-up but were retaught.