Language Experience Shapes Cognition: Comparing Memory for Chinese and English Words Jeffrey D. Wammes, 1 Myra A. Fernandes, 1 Janet H. Hsiao 2 1 University of Waterloo, 2 University of Hong Kong INTRODUCTION • Interference effects from dual- tasking during memory retrieval are larger when there is overlap in the materials used in the memory and distracting tasks. Word memory was interfered with more by word-based than digit-based tasks (Fernandes & Moscovitch, 2000). • Evidence suggests that processing type, not material type is the source of memory interference (Fernandes & Guild, 2009). • Chinese word processing is more visuo-spatial, while English word processing is more phonological (Tan et al., 2001). DESIGN • Compared memory for words written in Chinese characters in monolingual English and Bilingual Chinese-English participants. RESULTS Retrieval Phase: + + 500 ms 1500 ms 500 ms 500 ms Encoding Phase: 3500 ms Chinese-Eng... English-... 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Full Attention DA Phonological Accuracy (Hit Rate- False Alarm Rate) Chinese speakers showed significantl y greater memory interference from the visuospatial than phonological distracting task, a pattern that was not present in the English group. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Full Attention DA Phonological Accuracy (Hit Rate - False Alarm Rate) Chinese speakers were more susceptible to visuo- spatial than phonological interference . The English group displayed the opposite pattern. REFERENCES: • Fernandes, M., & Guild, E. (2009). Process-specific interference effects during recognition of spatial patterns and words. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 24-32. • Fernandes, M., & Moscovitch, M. (2000). Divided attention and memory: Evidence of substantial interference effects at retrieval and encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 155-176. • Tan, L., Liu, H., Perfetti, C., Spinks, J., Fox, P., & Gao, J. (2001). The neural system underlying Chinese logograph reading. NeuroImage, 13, 836-846. RESEARCH QUESTION • Given that Chinese and English word processing differs and that memory interference results from overlap in processing, can language experience alter the pattern of memory interference during dual-tasking? HYPOTHESES • Chinese speakers’ memory for Chinese characters will be more susceptible to visuo-spatial interference than English speakers’. • While Chinese word memory will be more susceptible to visuo-spatial interference, English word memory will be more susceptible to phonological interference . CONCLUSIONS • Results suggest overlap in type of processing required by tasks mediates dual-task effects at memory retrieval. • Individual differences in word representations emerge based on differing language experience. • These differences may lead to a heavier reliance on either visuospatial or phonological processing, directly affecting • Compared current data set with another in which English-only speakers’ memory for English words under same conditions. ‘B’ ‘B’ ‘M’ ‘M’ ‘R’ ‘R’ Phonological Secondary Task Visuo-Spatial Secondary Task estate ‘B’ ‘B’ ‘M’ ‘M’ ‘R’ ‘R’ Phonological Secondary Task Visuo-Spatial Secondary Task > <
Language Experience S hapes C ognition : Comparing Memory for Chinese and English Words
Feb 23, 2016
Language Experience S hapes C ognition : Comparing Memory for Chinese and English Words Jeffrey D. Wammes, 1 Myra A. Fernandes, 1 Janet H. Hsiao 2 1 University of Waterloo, 2 University of Hong Kong. ‘R’. ‘R’. ‘R’. ‘R’. ‘M’. ‘M’. ‘M’. ‘M’. ‘B’. ‘B’. ‘B’. ‘B’. INTRODUCTION - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Language Experience Shapes Cognition:Comparing Memory for Chinese and English Words
Jeffrey D. Wammes,1 Myra A. Fernandes,1 Janet H. Hsiao2
1 University of Waterloo, 2 University of Hong Kong
INTRODUCTION• Interference effects from dual-tasking during
memory retrieval are larger when there is overlap in the materials used in the memory and distracting tasks. Word memory was interfered with more by word-based than digit-based tasks (Fernandes & Moscovitch, 2000).
• Evidence suggests that processing type, not material type is the source of memory interference (Fernandes & Guild, 2009).
• Chinese word processing is more visuo-spatial, while English word processing is more phonological (Tan et al., 2001).
DESIGN• Compared memory for words written in Chinese
characters in monolingual English and Bilingual Chinese-English participants.
RESULTS
Retrieval Phase:
+ +500 ms
1500 ms
500 ms
500 ms
Encoding Phase:
3500 ms
Chinese-English English-Only0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1Full AttentionDA PhonologicalDA Visuo-Spatial
Accu
racy
(Hit
Rate
- Fal
se A
larm
Rat
e)
Chinese speakers showed significantly greater memory interference from the visuospatial than phonological distracting task, a pattern that was not present in the English group.
Chinese-English English (Fernandes & Guild, 2009)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1Full Attention
DA Phonological
DA Visuo-Spatial
Accu
racy
(Hit
Rate
- Fa
lse
Alar
m R
ate)
Chinese speakers were more susceptible to visuo-spatial than phonological interference. The English group displayed the opposite pattern.
REFERENCES:• Fernandes, M., & Guild, E. (2009). Process-specific interference effects during recognition of
spatial patterns and words. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 24-32.• Fernandes, M., & Moscovitch, M. (2000). Divided attention and memory: Evidence of
substantial interference effects at retrieval and encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 155-176.
• Tan, L., Liu, H., Perfetti, C., Spinks, J., Fox, P., & Gao, J. (2001). The neural system underlying Chinese logograph reading. NeuroImage, 13, 836-846.
RESEARCH QUESTION• Given that Chinese and English word processing
differs and that memory interference results from overlap in processing, can language experience alter the pattern of memory interference during dual-tasking?
HYPOTHESES• Chinese speakers’ memory for Chinese
characters will be more susceptible to visuo-spatial interference than English speakers’.
• While Chinese word memory will be more susceptible to visuo-spatial interference, English word memory will be more susceptible to phonological interference .
CONCLUSIONS• Results suggest overlap in type of processing
required by tasks mediates dual-task effects at memory retrieval.
• Individual differences in word representations emerge based on differing language experience.
• These differences may lead to a heavier reliance on either visuospatial or phonological processing, directly affecting patterns of memory interference under dual-task conditions.
• Compared current data set with another in which English-only speakers’ memory for English words under same conditions.
‘B’ ‘B’
‘M’ ‘M’
‘R’ ‘R’
Phonological SecondaryTask
Visuo-SpatialSecondary
Taskestate
‘B’ ‘B’
‘M’ ‘M’
‘R’ ‘R’
Phonological SecondaryTask
Visuo-SpatialSecondary
Task
>
<
Related Documents
