Advertisement

Rapid Serial Visual Presentation Interacts with Ambiguity During Sentence Comprehension

  • Sarah E. Key-DeLyriaEmail author
  • Todd Bodner
  • Lori J. P. Altmann
Article
  • 78 Downloads

Abstract

Conventional opinion about using Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) for examining sentence comprehension maintains that RSVP taxes working memory (WM), which probably affects sentence processing. However, most RSVP studies only infer the involvement of WM. Other cognitive resources, such as cognitive control or vocabulary may also impact sentence comprehension and interact with RSVP. Further, sentence ambiguity is predicted to interact with RSVP and cognitive resources to impact sentence comprehension. To test these relationships, participants read ambiguous and unambiguous sentences using RSVP and Whole-Sentence presentation, followed by comprehension questions that were targeted to the ambiguous region of the sentences. Presentation type and ambiguity interacted to affect RT such that the effect of RSVP was exaggerated for ambiguous sentences. RT effects were moderated by WM and vocabulary. WM and cognitive control affected accuracy. Findings are discussed in light of depth of processing and the impact of cognitive resources on sentence comprehension.

Keywords

Rapid Serial Visual Presentation Sentence processing Shallow processing Working memory Executive function 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36(3), 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Braze, D., Katz, L., Magnuson, J. S., Einar Mencl, W., Tabor, W., Van Dyke, J. A., et al. (2016). Vocabulary does not complicate the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 29, 435–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caplan, D., & Waters, G. S. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(01), 77–94.Google Scholar
  4. Caplan, D., & Waters, G. S. (2005). The relationship between age, processing speed, working memory capacity, and language comprehension. Memory, 13(3–4), 403–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caplan, D., & Waters, G. (2013). Memory mechanisms supporting syntactic comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(2), 243–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42(4), 368–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christianson, K., Luke, S. G., & Ferreira, F. (2010). Effects of plausibility on structural priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(2), 538–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 769–786.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corp, I. B. M. (2013). IBM SPSS statistics for windows (Version 22.0). Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
  10. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engelhardt, P. E., Nigg, J. T., & Ferreira, F. (2017). Executive function and intelligence in the resolution of temporary syntactic ambiguity: An individual differences investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(7), 1263–1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 102–134). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farmer, T. A., Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). Individual differences in sentence processing. In M. Spivey, M. Joannisse, & K. McRae (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 354–365). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fedorenko, E. (2014). The role of domain-general cognitive control in language comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(335), 1–17.Google Scholar
  15. Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1–2), 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forster, K. I. (1970). Visual perception of rapidly presented word sequences of varying complexity. Perception and Psychophysics, 8(4), 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (2000). ERP effects of listening to speech compared to reading: The P600/SPS to syntactic violations in spoken sentences and rapid serial visual presentation. Neuropsychologia, 38(11), 1531–1549.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(00)00053-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual-differences perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 637–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kempler, D., Almor, A., Tyler, L. K., Andersen, E. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (1998). Sentence comprehension deficits in Alzheimer’s disease: A comparison of off-line vs. on-line sentence processing. Brain and Language, 64(3), 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Key-DeLyria, S., & Altmann, L. J. P. (2016). Executive function and ambiguous sentence comprehension. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 25(2), 252–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee, D., & Newman, S. D. (2010). The effect of presentation paradigm on syntactic processing: An event-related fMRI study. Human Brain Mapping, 31(1), 65–79.Google Scholar
  23. Locker, L., Hoffman, L., & Bovaird, J. (2007). On the use of multilevel modeling as an alternative to item analysis in psycholinguistic research. Behavior Research Methods, 39(4), 723–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MacDonald, M. C., & Christiansen, M. H. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109(1), 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martin, R. C. (2006). The neuropsychology of sentence processing: Where do we stand? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23(1), 74–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin, R. C., Yan, H., & Schnur, T. T. (2014). Working memory and planning during sentence production. Acta Psychologica, 152, 120–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miyake, A., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1994). A capacity approach to syntactic comprehension disorders: Making normal adults perform like aphasic patients. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11(6), 671–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nation, P., & Coady, J. (1988). Vocabulary and reading. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 97–110). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  29. Nelson, H. G. (1992). National adult reading test (NART): Test manual. Windsor: NFER-Nelson. Google Scholar
  30. Novick, J. M., Hussey, E., Teubner-Rhodes, S., Harbison, J. I., & Bunting, M. F. (2013). Clearing the garden-path: Improving sentence processing through cognitive control training. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(2), 186–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Novick, J. M., Trueswell, J. C., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2005). Cognitive control and parsing: Reexamining the role of Broca’s area in sentence comprehension. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5(3), 263–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nozari, N., Dell, G. S., & Schwartz, M. F. (2011). Is comprehension necessary for error detection? A conflict-based account of monitoring in speech production. Cognitive Psychology, 63(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Potter, M. C. (1984). Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP): a method for studying language processing. In D. E. Kieras & M. A. Just (Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Potter, M. C., Kroll, J. F., & Harris, C. (1980). Comprehension and memory in rapid sequential reading. In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (pp. 395–418). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reitan, R. M. (1958). Validity of the Trail Making Test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 8, 271–276.  https://doi.org/10.2466/PMS.8.7.271-276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Salthouse, T. A. (1991). Mediation of adult age differences in cognition by reductions in working memory and speed of processing. Psychological Science, 2(3), 179–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sanford, A. J. S., Sanford, A. J., Molle, J., & Emmott, C. (2006). Shallow processing and attention capture in written and spoken discourse. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schotter, E. R., Tran, R., & Rayner, K. (2014). Don’t believe what you read (only once): Comprehension is supported by regressions during reading. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1218–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schremm, A., Horne, M., & Roll, M. (2016). Time-driven effects on processing relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45, 1033–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shipley, W. C. (1940). A self-administering scale for measuring intellectual impairment and deterioration. The Journal of Psychology, 9(2), 371–377.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1940.9917704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Swets, B., Desmet, T., Hambrick, D. Z., & Ferreira, F. (2007). The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: A psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(1), 64–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thothathiri, M., Gagliardi, M., & Schwartz, M. F. (2012). Subdivision of frontal cortex mechanisms for language production in aphasia. Neuropsychologia, 50(14), 3284–3294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vuong, L. C., & Martin, R. C. (2014). Domain-specific executive control and the revision of misinterpretations in sentence comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(3), 312–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (1996). Processing resource capacity and the comprehension of garden path sentences. Memory & Cognition, 24(3), 342–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Third Edition manual. New York: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  48. Wells, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., Race, D. S., Acheson, D. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 58(2), 250–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ye, Z., & Zhou, X. (2008). Involvement of cognitive control in sentence comprehension: Evidence from ERPs. Brain Research, 1203, 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ye, Z., & Zhou, X. (2009). Executive control in language processing. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 33(8), 1168–1177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Speech and Hearing Sciences DepartmentPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA
  3. 3.Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing SciencesUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations