It is commonly assumed that bilinguals enable production in their nondominant language by inhibit... more It is commonly assumed that bilinguals enable production in their nondominant language by inhibiting their dominant language temporarily, fully lifting inhibition to switch back. In a re-analysis of data from 416 Spanish-English bilinguals who repeatedly named a small set of pictures while switching languages in response to cues, we separated trials into different types that revealed three cumulative effects. Bilinguals named each picture (a) faster for every time they had previously named that same picture in the same language, an asymmetric repetition priming effect that was greater in their nondominant language, and (b) more slowly for every time they had previously named that same picture in the other language, an effect that was equivalent across languages and implies symmetric lateral inhibition between translation equivalents. Additionally, (c) bilinguals named pictures in the dominant language more slowly for every time they had previously named unrelated pictures in the nondominant language, exhibiting asymmetric language-wide global inhibition. These mechanisms dynamically alter the balances of activation between languages and between lemmas, providing evidence for an oft-assumed but seldom demonstrated key mechanism of bilingual control (competition between translations), resolving the mystery of why reversed language dominance sometimes emerges (the combined forces of asymmetrical effects emerge over time in mixed-language blocks), and also explaining other longer-lasting effects (block order). Key signatures of bilingual control can depend on seemingly trivial methodological details (e.g., number of trials in a block) because inhibition is applied cumulatively at both local and global levels, persisting long after each individual act of selection.
Objective: We investigated whether language production is atypically resource-demanding in adults... more Objective: We investigated whether language production is atypically resource-demanding in adults who stutter (AWS) versus typically-fluent adults (TFA).
Methods: Fifteen TFA and 15 AWS named pictures overlaid with printed Semantic, Phonological or Unrelated Distractor words while monitoring frequent low tones versus rare high tones. Tones were pre- sented at a short or long Stimulus Onset Asynchrony (SOA) relative to picture onset. Group, Tone Type, Tone SOA and Distractor Type effects on P3 amplitudes were the main focus. P3 amplitude was also investigated separately in a simple tone oddball task.
Results: P3 morphology was similar between groups in the simple task. In the dual task, a P3 effect was detected in TFA in all three distractor conditions at each Tone SOA. In AWS, a P3 effect was attenuated or undetectable at the Short Tone SOA depending on Distractor Type.
Conclusions: In TFA, attentional resources were available for P3-indexed processes in tone perception and categorization in all distractor conditions at both Tone SOAs. For AWS, availability of attentional resources for secondary task processing was reduced as competition in word retrieval was resolved.
Significance: Results suggest that language production can be atypically resource-demanding in AWS. Theoretical and clinical implications of the findings are discussed.
How do bilinguals switch easily between languages in everyday conversation, when thousands of stu... more How do bilinguals switch easily between languages in everyday conversation, when thousands of studies have found that switching slows responses? Previous research has not considered that although switches may happen for different reasons, only some switches – including those typically studied in laboratory experiments – might be costly. Using a repeated picture naming task, we show that bilinguals can maintain and use two languages as efficiently as a single language, switching between them frequently without any cost, if they switch only when a word is more accessible in the other language. These results suggest that language switch costs arise during lexical selection, that top-down language control mechanisms can be suspended, and that language-mixing efficiency can be strategically increased with instruction. Thus, bilinguals might switch languages spontaneously because doing so is not always costly, and there appears to be greater flexibility and efficiency in the cognitive mechanisms that enable switching than previously assumed.
Comprehenders predict upcoming speech and text on the basis of linguistic input. How many predict... more Comprehenders predict upcoming speech and text on the basis of linguistic input. How many predictions do comprehenders make for an upcoming word? If a listener strongly expects to hear the word “sock”, is the word “shirt” partially expected as well, is it actively inhibited, or is it ignored? The present research addressed these questions by measuring the “downstream” effects of prediction on the processing of subsequently presented stimuli using the cumulative semantic interference paradigm. In three experiments, subjects named pictures (sock) that were presented either in isolation or after strongly constraining sentence frames (“After doing his laundry, Mark always seemed to be missing one…”). Naming “sock” slowed the subsequent naming of the picture “shirt” – the standard cumulative semantic interference effect. However, although picture naming was much faster after sentence frames, the interference effect was not modulated by the context (bare vs. sentence) in which either picture was presented. According to the only model of cumulative semantic interference that can account for such a pattern of data, this indicates that comprehenders pre-activated and maintained the pre-activation of best sentence completions (sock) but did not maintain the pre-activation of less likely completions (shirt). Thus, comprehenders predicted only the most probable completion for each sentence.
The current study contrasted cued versus voluntary switching to investigate switching efficiency ... more The current study contrasted cued versus voluntary switching to investigate switching efficiency and possible sharing of control mechanisms across linguistic and non-linguistic domains. Bilinguals switched between naming pictures in Spanish versus English or between reading numbers aloud versus adding their digits, either without or with repetition of stimuli, and with fewer requirements as to when and how much they had to switch relative to previous instantiations of voluntary switching. Without repetition (Experiment 1), voluntary responses were faster than cued responses on both stay and switch trials (especially in the non-linguistic switching task), whereas in previous studies the voluntary advantage was restricted to switch-cost reduction. Similarly, when targets were presented repeatedly (Experiment 2), voluntary responses were faster overall for both linguistic and non-linguistic switching, though here the advantage tended to be larger on switch trials. Experiment 3 confirmed the overall voluntary speed advantage for the read-add task in monolinguals, and revealed a reduction in switch costs only for a different non-linguistic task (size-parity judgments). These results reveal greater overall advantages for voluntary over cued switching than previously reported, but also that the precise manifestation of the voluntary advantage can vary with different tasks. In the linguistic domain, lexical inaccessibility introduces some unique control mechanisms, and repetition may magnify cross-domain overlap in control mechanisms. Finally, under some limited conditions, cost-free switches were found in both linguistic and non-linguistic domains; however, suspension of top-down control may be restricted to language or highly automatic tasks.
The semantic picture–word interference task has been used to diagnose how speakers resolve compet... more The semantic picture–word interference task has been used to diagnose how speakers resolve competition while selecting words for production. The attentional demands of this resolution process were assessed in 2 dual-task experiments (tone classification followed by picture naming). In Experiment 1, when pictures and distractor words were presented simultaneously, semantic interference was not observed when tasks maximally overlapped. This replicates a key finding from the literature that suggested that semantic picture–word interference does not require capacity-limited central attentional resources and occurs prior to lexical selection, an interpretation that runs counter to the claims of all major theories of word production. In another Experiment 1 condition, when distractors were presented 250 ms after pictures, interference emerged when tasks maximally overlapped. Together, these findings support an account in which interference resolution and lexical selection both require central resources, but the activation of lexical representations from written words does not. Subsequent analysis revealed that discrepant results obtained in previous replication attempts may be attributable to differences in phonological (ir)regularity between languages. In Experiment 2, degree of semantic interference was manipulated using the cumulative semantic interference paradigm. Interference was observed regardless of task overlap, confirming that lexical selection requires central resources. Together, these findings indicate that a lexical selection locus of semantic picture–word interference—and models of word production that assume such a locus—may be retained.
It is now well established that people in conversations repeat each other’s words and structures.... more It is now well established that people in conversations repeat each other’s words and structures. Does doing so reflect dialogue participants’ expectations that their own choices of words or structures will be repeated back to them? In two experiments, subjects and confederates (purportedly) took turns describing pictures to each other. On critical trials, we measured response latencies to choose pictures when labels (e.g., stroller) or syntactic structures (a prepositional dative) that subjects had just produced were repeated back to them, versus when they heard reasonable alternatives (baby carriage or a double-object structure). Experiment 1 showed that repeated words and syntactic structures both elicit faster responses. Experiment 2 showed that the effect happens even when subjects hear descriptions from computers, instead of from their addressees, and that the repeated-word effect was not due to preferences for labels. These observations suggest that dialogue participants expect their own word and structure choices to be repeated back to them, and this is general to the task situation rather than specific to their communicative partners.
It is commonly assumed that bilinguals enable production in their nondominant language by inhibit... more It is commonly assumed that bilinguals enable production in their nondominant language by inhibiting their dominant language temporarily, fully lifting inhibition to switch back. In a re-analysis of data from 416 Spanish-English bilinguals who repeatedly named a small set of pictures while switching languages in response to cues, we separated trials into different types that revealed three cumulative effects. Bilinguals named each picture (a) faster for every time they had previously named that same picture in the same language, an asymmetric repetition priming effect that was greater in their nondominant language, and (b) more slowly for every time they had previously named that same picture in the other language, an effect that was equivalent across languages and implies symmetric lateral inhibition between translation equivalents. Additionally, (c) bilinguals named pictures in the dominant language more slowly for every time they had previously named unrelated pictures in the nondominant language, exhibiting asymmetric language-wide global inhibition. These mechanisms dynamically alter the balances of activation between languages and between lemmas, providing evidence for an oft-assumed but seldom demonstrated key mechanism of bilingual control (competition between translations), resolving the mystery of why reversed language dominance sometimes emerges (the combined forces of asymmetrical effects emerge over time in mixed-language blocks), and also explaining other longer-lasting effects (block order). Key signatures of bilingual control can depend on seemingly trivial methodological details (e.g., number of trials in a block) because inhibition is applied cumulatively at both local and global levels, persisting long after each individual act of selection.
Objective: We investigated whether language production is atypically resource-demanding in adults... more Objective: We investigated whether language production is atypically resource-demanding in adults who stutter (AWS) versus typically-fluent adults (TFA).
Methods: Fifteen TFA and 15 AWS named pictures overlaid with printed Semantic, Phonological or Unrelated Distractor words while monitoring frequent low tones versus rare high tones. Tones were pre- sented at a short or long Stimulus Onset Asynchrony (SOA) relative to picture onset. Group, Tone Type, Tone SOA and Distractor Type effects on P3 amplitudes were the main focus. P3 amplitude was also investigated separately in a simple tone oddball task.
Results: P3 morphology was similar between groups in the simple task. In the dual task, a P3 effect was detected in TFA in all three distractor conditions at each Tone SOA. In AWS, a P3 effect was attenuated or undetectable at the Short Tone SOA depending on Distractor Type.
Conclusions: In TFA, attentional resources were available for P3-indexed processes in tone perception and categorization in all distractor conditions at both Tone SOAs. For AWS, availability of attentional resources for secondary task processing was reduced as competition in word retrieval was resolved.
Significance: Results suggest that language production can be atypically resource-demanding in AWS. Theoretical and clinical implications of the findings are discussed.
How do bilinguals switch easily between languages in everyday conversation, when thousands of stu... more How do bilinguals switch easily between languages in everyday conversation, when thousands of studies have found that switching slows responses? Previous research has not considered that although switches may happen for different reasons, only some switches – including those typically studied in laboratory experiments – might be costly. Using a repeated picture naming task, we show that bilinguals can maintain and use two languages as efficiently as a single language, switching between them frequently without any cost, if they switch only when a word is more accessible in the other language. These results suggest that language switch costs arise during lexical selection, that top-down language control mechanisms can be suspended, and that language-mixing efficiency can be strategically increased with instruction. Thus, bilinguals might switch languages spontaneously because doing so is not always costly, and there appears to be greater flexibility and efficiency in the cognitive mechanisms that enable switching than previously assumed.
Comprehenders predict upcoming speech and text on the basis of linguistic input. How many predict... more Comprehenders predict upcoming speech and text on the basis of linguistic input. How many predictions do comprehenders make for an upcoming word? If a listener strongly expects to hear the word “sock”, is the word “shirt” partially expected as well, is it actively inhibited, or is it ignored? The present research addressed these questions by measuring the “downstream” effects of prediction on the processing of subsequently presented stimuli using the cumulative semantic interference paradigm. In three experiments, subjects named pictures (sock) that were presented either in isolation or after strongly constraining sentence frames (“After doing his laundry, Mark always seemed to be missing one…”). Naming “sock” slowed the subsequent naming of the picture “shirt” – the standard cumulative semantic interference effect. However, although picture naming was much faster after sentence frames, the interference effect was not modulated by the context (bare vs. sentence) in which either picture was presented. According to the only model of cumulative semantic interference that can account for such a pattern of data, this indicates that comprehenders pre-activated and maintained the pre-activation of best sentence completions (sock) but did not maintain the pre-activation of less likely completions (shirt). Thus, comprehenders predicted only the most probable completion for each sentence.
The current study contrasted cued versus voluntary switching to investigate switching efficiency ... more The current study contrasted cued versus voluntary switching to investigate switching efficiency and possible sharing of control mechanisms across linguistic and non-linguistic domains. Bilinguals switched between naming pictures in Spanish versus English or between reading numbers aloud versus adding their digits, either without or with repetition of stimuli, and with fewer requirements as to when and how much they had to switch relative to previous instantiations of voluntary switching. Without repetition (Experiment 1), voluntary responses were faster than cued responses on both stay and switch trials (especially in the non-linguistic switching task), whereas in previous studies the voluntary advantage was restricted to switch-cost reduction. Similarly, when targets were presented repeatedly (Experiment 2), voluntary responses were faster overall for both linguistic and non-linguistic switching, though here the advantage tended to be larger on switch trials. Experiment 3 confirmed the overall voluntary speed advantage for the read-add task in monolinguals, and revealed a reduction in switch costs only for a different non-linguistic task (size-parity judgments). These results reveal greater overall advantages for voluntary over cued switching than previously reported, but also that the precise manifestation of the voluntary advantage can vary with different tasks. In the linguistic domain, lexical inaccessibility introduces some unique control mechanisms, and repetition may magnify cross-domain overlap in control mechanisms. Finally, under some limited conditions, cost-free switches were found in both linguistic and non-linguistic domains; however, suspension of top-down control may be restricted to language or highly automatic tasks.
The semantic picture–word interference task has been used to diagnose how speakers resolve compet... more The semantic picture–word interference task has been used to diagnose how speakers resolve competition while selecting words for production. The attentional demands of this resolution process were assessed in 2 dual-task experiments (tone classification followed by picture naming). In Experiment 1, when pictures and distractor words were presented simultaneously, semantic interference was not observed when tasks maximally overlapped. This replicates a key finding from the literature that suggested that semantic picture–word interference does not require capacity-limited central attentional resources and occurs prior to lexical selection, an interpretation that runs counter to the claims of all major theories of word production. In another Experiment 1 condition, when distractors were presented 250 ms after pictures, interference emerged when tasks maximally overlapped. Together, these findings support an account in which interference resolution and lexical selection both require central resources, but the activation of lexical representations from written words does not. Subsequent analysis revealed that discrepant results obtained in previous replication attempts may be attributable to differences in phonological (ir)regularity between languages. In Experiment 2, degree of semantic interference was manipulated using the cumulative semantic interference paradigm. Interference was observed regardless of task overlap, confirming that lexical selection requires central resources. Together, these findings indicate that a lexical selection locus of semantic picture–word interference—and models of word production that assume such a locus—may be retained.
It is now well established that people in conversations repeat each other’s words and structures.... more It is now well established that people in conversations repeat each other’s words and structures. Does doing so reflect dialogue participants’ expectations that their own choices of words or structures will be repeated back to them? In two experiments, subjects and confederates (purportedly) took turns describing pictures to each other. On critical trials, we measured response latencies to choose pictures when labels (e.g., stroller) or syntactic structures (a prepositional dative) that subjects had just produced were repeated back to them, versus when they heard reasonable alternatives (baby carriage or a double-object structure). Experiment 1 showed that repeated words and syntactic structures both elicit faster responses. Experiment 2 showed that the effect happens even when subjects hear descriptions from computers, instead of from their addressees, and that the repeated-word effect was not due to preferences for labels. These observations suggest that dialogue participants expect their own word and structure choices to be repeated back to them, and this is general to the task situation rather than specific to their communicative partners.
Uploads
Papers by Daniel Kleinman
Methods: Fifteen TFA and 15 AWS named pictures overlaid with printed Semantic, Phonological or Unrelated Distractor words while monitoring frequent low tones versus rare high tones. Tones were pre- sented at a short or long Stimulus Onset Asynchrony (SOA) relative to picture onset. Group, Tone Type, Tone SOA and Distractor Type effects on P3 amplitudes were the main focus. P3 amplitude was also investigated separately in a simple tone oddball task.
Results: P3 morphology was similar between groups in the simple task. In the dual task, a P3 effect was detected in TFA in all three distractor conditions at each Tone SOA. In AWS, a P3 effect was attenuated or undetectable at the Short Tone SOA depending on Distractor Type.
Conclusions: In TFA, attentional resources were available for P3-indexed processes in tone perception and categorization in all distractor conditions at both Tone SOAs. For AWS, availability of attentional resources for secondary task processing was reduced as competition in word retrieval was resolved.
Significance: Results suggest that language production can be atypically resource-demanding in AWS. Theoretical and clinical implications of the findings are discussed.
Methods: Fifteen TFA and 15 AWS named pictures overlaid with printed Semantic, Phonological or Unrelated Distractor words while monitoring frequent low tones versus rare high tones. Tones were pre- sented at a short or long Stimulus Onset Asynchrony (SOA) relative to picture onset. Group, Tone Type, Tone SOA and Distractor Type effects on P3 amplitudes were the main focus. P3 amplitude was also investigated separately in a simple tone oddball task.
Results: P3 morphology was similar between groups in the simple task. In the dual task, a P3 effect was detected in TFA in all three distractor conditions at each Tone SOA. In AWS, a P3 effect was attenuated or undetectable at the Short Tone SOA depending on Distractor Type.
Conclusions: In TFA, attentional resources were available for P3-indexed processes in tone perception and categorization in all distractor conditions at both Tone SOAs. For AWS, availability of attentional resources for secondary task processing was reduced as competition in word retrieval was resolved.
Significance: Results suggest that language production can be atypically resource-demanding in AWS. Theoretical and clinical implications of the findings are discussed.