Rethinking parafoveal processing in reading: Serial-attention models can explain semantic preview benefit and N+2 preview effects

During reading, some information about the word to the right of fixation in the parafovea is typically acquired prior to that word being fixated. Although some degree parafoveal processing is uncontroversial, its precise nature and extent are unclear. For example, can it advance up to the level of semantic processing? Additionally, can it extend across more than two spatially adjacent words? Affirmative answers to either of these questions would seemingly be problematic for serial-attention models of eye-movement control in reading, which maintain that attention is allocated to only one word at a time (see Reichle, 2011). However, in this paper we report simulation results using one such model, E-Z Reader (Reichle, Pollatsek, Fisher, & Rayner, 1998), to examine the two preceding questions. These results suggest the existence of both semantic preview and N+2 preview effects, indicating that they are not incompatible with serial-attention models. We discuss the implications of these findings for models of eye-movement control in reading and provide a new theoretical framework for conceptualizing parafoveal processing during reading and its influence on eye movement behaviour.     

Generalisation of fear and avoidance along a semantic continuum

Directly conditioned fear and avoidance readily generalises to dissimilar but conceptually related stimuli. Here, for the first time, we examined the conceptual/semantic generalisation of both fear and avoidance using real words (synonyms). Participants were first exposed to a differential fear conditioning procedure in which one word (e.g., “broth”; CS+) was followed with brief electric shock [unconditioned stimulus (US)] and another was not (e.g., “assist”; CS–). Next, an instrumental conditioning phase taught avoidance in the presence the CS+ but not the CS–. During generalisation testing, synonyms of the CS+ (e.g., “soup”; GCS+) and CS– (e.g., “help”; GCS–) were presented in the absence of shock. Conditioned fear and avoidance, measured via skin conductance responses, behavioural avoidance and US expectancy ratings, generalised to the semantically related, but not to the semantically unrelated, synonyms. Findings have implications for how natural language categories and concepts mediate the expansion of fear and avoidance repertoires in clinical contexts.     

Different task success criteria affect expectancies of success but do not improve golf putting performance

This study examined how providing different criteria for success affected perceived expectations of success, performance, and learning in a golf-putting task. Twenty-nine physical education students were divided into three experimental groups: (a) a large-circle (LC) group that practiced 10 blocks of five putts, each with a 40 cm diameter circle around the target; (b) a small circle (SC) group that practiced with a 10 cm diameter circle around the target; and (c) a control (C) group that practiced with a 25 cm diameter circle around the target. Forty-eight hours after practice, the participants performed a retention test and a transfer test with a 25 cm diameter circle. The transfer test included putting from a greater distance and from a different angle. Throughout the study, we asked the participants to tell us what they think their chances are to land 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 balls out of 5 possible balls in each block. There were four main findings: (a) the SC group had lower expectancies of success compared with the LC and C groups in acquisition; (b) there were no group differences in performance or learning among groups; (c) golf club kinematic parameters worsened in the transfer test; and (d) the LC group reduced their expectancies of success from the retention to the transfer test, but the expectancies of the SC and C groups remained the same. We conclude that changes in success criteria affect expectancies of success but do not affect actual putting performance or learning.     

Global and Local Feature Distinctiveness Effects in Language Acquisition

Various aspects of semantic features drive early vocabulary development, but less is known about how the global and local structure of the overall semantic feature space influences language acquisition. A feature network of English words was constructed from a large database of adult feature production norms such that edges in the network represented feature distances between words (i.e., Manhattan distances of probability distributions of features elicited for each pair of words). A word's global feature distinctiveness is measured with respect to all other words in the network and a word's local feature distinctiveness is measured relative to words in sub-networks derived from clustering analyses. This paper investigates how feature distinctiveness of individual words at local and global scales of the network influences language acquisition. Regression analyses indicate that global feature distinctiveness was associated with earlier age of acquisition ratings, and was a stronger predictor of age of acquisition than local feature distinctiveness. These results suggest that the global structure of the semantic feature network could play an important role in language acquisition, whereby globally distinctive concepts help to structure vocabulary development over the lifespan.     

Does Semantics Need Normativity? Comments on Allan Gibbard,Meaning and Normativity

In the book Gibbard proposes, first, that statements about meaning are normative statements and, second, that they can be given an expressivist treatment, along the lines of Gibbard’s preferred metaethics. In my paper, I examine the first step: The claim that meaning statements are to be construed as being normative, as involving ‘oughts’. Gibbard distinguishes two versions of the normativity of meaning thesis – a weak version, according to which every means implies an ought, and a strong version, according to which for every means, there is an ought that implies it. I argue that neither thesis withstands scrutiny. The weak thesis depends on assumptions about the notion of semantic correctness that the anti-normativist rejects, and the strong thesis does not solve the problems Gibbard wants it to solve: the problems of indeterminacy and meaning skepticism. I conclude that semantics does not need normativity.     

The question shapes the answer: the neural correlates of task differences reveal dynamic semantic processing

Task effects in semantic processing were investigated by contrasting the neural activation associated with two semantic categorization tasks (SCT) using event-related fMRI. The two SCTs involved different decision categories: is it an animal? vs. is it a concrete thing? Participants completed both tasks and, across participants, the same core set of items were presented in both tasks. Results showed task differences in the neural activation associated with these items: in the animal SCT there was greater activation in a number of frontal and temporal regions, including left superior and middle temporal gyri, while in the concrete SCT there was greater activation in left medial frontal gyrus and bilaterally in the precentral gyri. These results are interpreted as evidence of top-down modulation of semantic processing; participants make adjustments to optimize performance in a given task and these adjustments have consequences for the activation observed.     

Semantic interference during object naming in agrammatic and logopenic primary progressive aphasia (PPA)

This study examined the time course of object naming in 21 individuals with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) (8 agrammatic (PPA-G); 13 logopenic (PPA-L)) and healthy age-matched speakers (n = 17) using a semantic interference paradigm with related and unrelated interfering stimuli presented at stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) of −1000, −500, −100 and 0 ms. Results showed semantic interference (SI) (i.e. significantly slower RTs in related compared to unrelated conditions) for all groups at −500, −100 and 0 ms, indicating timely spreading activation to semantic competitors. However, both PPA groups showed a greater magnitude of SI than normal across SOAs. The PPA-L group and six PPA-G participants also evinced SI at −1000 ms, suggesting an abnormal time course of semantic interference resolution, and concomitant left hemisphere cortical atrophy in brain regions associated with semantic processing. These subtle semantic mapping impairments in non-semantic variants of PPA may contribute to the anomia of these patients.     

How the brain responds to any: an MEG study

The word any may appear in some sentences, but not in others. For example, any is permitted in sentences that contain the word nobody, as in Nobody ate any fruit. However, in a minimally different context any seems strikingly anomalous: ^*Everybody ate any fruit. The aim of the present study was to investigate how the brain responds to the word any in such minimally different contexts - where it is permitted (licensed) and where it is not permitted (unlicensed). Brain responses were measured from adult readers using magnetoencephalography (MEG). The results showed significantly larger responses to permissible contexts in the left posterior temporal areas between 400-500 ms and 590-660 ms. These results clarify the anatomy and timing of brain processes that contribute to our judgment that a word such as any is or is not permitted in a given context.