Displaying 1 - 6 of 6
-
Fueller, C., Loescher, J., & Indefrey, P. (2013). Writing superiority in cued recall. Frontiers in Psychology, 4: 764. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00764.
Abstract
In list learning paradigms with free recall, written recall has been found to be less susceptible to intrusions of related concepts than spoken recall when the list items had been visually presented. This effect has been ascribed to the use of stored orthographic representations from the study phase during written recall (Kellogg, 2001). In other memory retrieval paradigms, by contrast, either better recall for modality-congruent items or an input-independent writing superiority effect have been found (Grabowski, 2005). In a series of four experiments using a paired associate learning paradigm we tested (a) whether output modality effects on verbal recall can be replicated in a paradigm that does not involve the rejection of semantically related intrusion words, (b) whether a possible superior performance for written recall was due to a slower response onset for writing as compared to speaking in immediate recall, and (c) whether the performance in paired associate word recall was correlated with performance in an additional episodic memory recall task. We observed better written recall in the first half of the recall phase, irrespective of the modality in which the material was presented upon encoding. An explanation for this effect based on longer response latencies for writing and hence more time for memory retrieval could be ruled out by showing that the effect persisted in delayed response versions of the task. Although there was some evidence that stored additional episodic information may contribute to the successful retrieval of associate words, this evidence was only found in the immediate response experiments and hence is most likely independent from the observed output modality effect. In sum, our results from a paired associate learning paradigm suggest that superior performance for written vs. spoken recall cannot be (solely) explained in terms of additional access to stored orthographic representations from the encoding phase. Our findings rather suggest a general writing-superiority effect at the time of memory retrieval. -
Indefrey, P., Brown, C. M., Hellwig, F. M., Amunts, K., Herzog, H., Seitz, R. J., & Hagoort, P. (2001). A neural correlate of syntactic encoding during speech production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98, 5933-5936. doi:10.1073/pnas.101118098.
Abstract
Spoken language is one of the most compact and structured ways to convey information. The linguistic ability to structure individual words into larger sentence units permits speakers to express a nearly unlimited range of meanings. This ability is rooted in speakers’ knowledge of syntax and in the corresponding process of syntactic encoding. Syntactic encoding is highly automatized, operates largely outside of conscious awareness, and overlaps closely in time with several other processes of language production. With the use of positron emission tomography we investigated the cortical activations during spoken language production that are related to the syntactic encoding process. In the paradigm of restrictive scene description, utterances varying in complexity of syntactic encoding were elicited. Results provided evidence that the left Rolandic operculum, caudally adjacent to Broca’s area, is involved in both sentence-level and local (phrase-level) syntactic encoding during speaking. -
Indefrey, P., Hagoort, P., Herzog, H., Seitz, R. J., & Brown, C. M. (2001). Syntactic processing in left prefrontal cortex is independent of lexical meaning. Neuroimage, 14, 546-555. doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.0867.
Abstract
In language comprehension a syntactic representation is built up even when the input is semantically uninterpretable. We report data on brain activation during syntactic processing, from an experiment on the detection of grammatical errors in meaningless sentences. The experimental paradigm was such that the syntactic processing was distinguished from other cognitive and linguistic functions. The data reveal that in syntactic error detection an area of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, adjacent to Broca’s area, is specifically involved in the syntactic processing aspects, whereas other prefrontal areas subserve general error detection processes. -
Hagoort, P., Indefrey, P., Brown, C. M., Herzog, H., Steinmetz, H., & Seitz, R. J. (1999). The neural circuitry involved in the reading of german words and pseudowords: A PET study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(4), 383-398. doi:10.1162/089892999563490.
Abstract
Silent reading and reading aloud of German words and pseudowords were used in a PET study using (15O)butanol to examine the neural correlates of reading and of the phonological conversion of legal letter strings, with or without meaning.
The results of 11 healthy, right-handed volunteers in the age range of 25 to 30 years showed activation of the lingual gyri during silent reading in comparison with viewing a fixation cross. Comparisons between the reading of words and pseudowords suggest the involvement of the middle temporal gyri in retrieving both the phonological and semantic code for words. The reading of pseudowords activates the left inferior frontal gyrus, including the ventral part of Broca’s area, to a larger extent than the reading of words. This suggests that this area might be involved in the sublexical conversion of orthographic input strings into phonological output codes. (Pre)motor areas were found to be activated during both silent reading and reading aloud. On the basis of the obtained activation patterns, it is hypothesized that the articulation of high-frequency syllables requires the retrieval of their concomitant articulatory gestures from the SMA and that the articulation of lowfrequency syllables recruits the left medial premotor cortex. -
Indefrey, P., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). A meta-analysis of neuroimaging experiments on word production. Neuroimage, 7, 1028.
-
Indefrey, P. (1999). Some problems with the lexical status of nondefault inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(6), 1025. doi:10.1017/S0140525X99342229.
Abstract
Clahsen's characterization of nondefault inflection as based exclusively on lexical entries does not capture the full range of empirical data on German inflection. In the verb system differential effects of lexical frequency seem to be input-related rather than affecting morphological production. In the noun system, the generalization properties of -n and -e plurals exceed mere analogy-based productivity.
Share this page