Comprehending Events on the Fly: Inhibition and Selection during Sentence Processing

In our everyday conversations we talk about how things or people change. Instantiations of objects in their different states need to be maintained during language comprehension for future selection of the relevant state, as in The chef will chop the onion. And then/but first, she will weigh the onion. Previous fMRI studies (Solomon et al, 2015) demonstrated that selecting between multiple competing representations of the same object token, such as the intact and the chopped onion, elicits increased activation in the brain area associated with conflict resolution -- left pVLPFC. When there is no cue to the earlier introduced object, as in The chef will chop/smell the onion. And then, she will weigh another onion, no retrieval cost is observed because none of the states is relevant. However, due to the poor temporal resolution of fMRI, it is difficult to make assumptions about the dynamics of this effect and where exactly in the sentence it occurs. To track this competition effect over time, dEEG was recorded as participants (N=23) read sentences presented to them word by word. Critical sentences were organized in a two-by-two design with degree of change and token reference being the two factors. A time-frequency analysis of EEG, synchronized from the onset of the final determiner phrase in the second sentence, revealed a significant increase in alpha (8-12 Hz) in sentences describing state change and referring back to the same token. This finding is consistent with literature relating alpha oscillations to cortical inhibitory processing and selection mechanisms

Online eye tracking and real-time sentence processing: On opportunities and efficacy for capturing psycholinguistic effects of different magnitudes and diversity

Online research methods have the potential to facilitate equitable accessibility to otherwise-expensive research resources, as well as to more diverse populations and language combinations than currently populate our studies. In psycholinguistics specifcally, webcam-based eye tracking is emerging as a powerful online tool capable of capturing sentence processing efects in real time. The present paper asks whether webcam-based eye tracking provides the necessary granularity to replicate efects—crucially both large and small—that tracker-based eye tracking has shown. Using the Gorilla Experiment Builder platform, this study set out to replicate two psycholinguistic efects: a robust one, the verb semantic constraint efect, frst reported in Altmann and Kamide, Cognition 73(3), 247–264 (1999), and a smaller one, the lexical interference efect, frst examined by Kukona et al. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(2), 326 (2014). Webcam-based eye tracking was able to replicate both efects, thus showing that its functionality is not limited to large efects. Moreover, the paper also reports two approaches to computing statistical power and discusses the diferences in their outputs. Beyond discussing several important methodological, theoretical, and practical implications, we ofer some further technical details and advice on how to implement webcam-based eye-tracking studies. We believe that the advent of webcam-based eye tracking, at least in respect of the visual world paradigm, will kickstart a new wave of more diverse studies with more diverse populations

Cognitive Neuroscience Perspectives on Language Acquisition and Processing

The earliest investigations of the neural implementation of language started with examining patients with various types of disorders and underlying brain damage. The advent of neuroimaging tools in the twentieth century drastically changed the landscape of the field of the (cognitive) neuroscience of language, expanding the variety and depth of research questions one could ask without being confined to specific populations. Today we have better insights regarding the potential (neuro)cognitive correlates of language and an improved understanding of the neurocognitive consequences of language(s) in the mind/brain. And yet the linking hypotheses between neuroscience on the one hand and language on the other do not offer the level of detail needed to move the field from correlational to explanatory [1]. Thus, any further work that takes a more fine-grained look at both language processing and its neurocognitive substrates is warranted and welcome

Bilectal Exposure Modulates Neural Signatures to Conflicting Grammatical Properties: Norway as a Natural Laboratory

The current study investigated gender (control) and number (target) agreement processing in Northern and non-Northern Norwegians living in Northern Norway. Participants varied in exposure to Northern Norwegian (NN) dialect(s), where number marking differs from most other Norwegian dialects. In a comprehension task involving reading NN dialect writing, P600 effects for number agreement were significantly affected by NN exposure. The more exposure the NN nonnatives had, the larger the P600 was, driven by the presence of number agreement (ungrammatical in NN). In contrast, less exposure correlated to the inverse: P600 driven by the absence of number agreement (ungrammatical in most other dialects). The NN natives showed P600 driven by the presence of number agreement regardless of exposure. These findings suggests that bilectalism entails the representation of distinct mental grammars for each dialect. However, like all instances of bilingualism, bilectalism exists on a continuum whereby linguistic processing is modulated by linguistic experience

Monolingual comparative normativity in bilingualism research is out of “control”: Arguments and alternatives

Accepted manuscript, to appeared in Applied Psycholinguistics: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/applied-psycholinguistics.Herein, we contextualize, problematize and offer some insights for moving beyond the problem of monolingual comparative normativity in (psycho)linguistic research on bilingualism. We argue that, in the vast majority of cases, juxtaposing (functional) monolinguals to bilinguals fails to offer what the comparison is supposedly intended to do: meet the standards of empirical control in line with the scientific method. Instead, the default nature of monolingual comparative normativity has historically contributed to inequalities in many facets of bilingualism research and continues to impede progress on multiple levels. Beyond framing our views on the matter, we offer some epistemological considerations and methodological alternatives to this standard practice that improve empirical rigor while fostering increased diversity, inclusivity and equity in our field

Monolingual comparative normativity in bilingualism research is out of “control”: Arguments and alternatives

Herein, we contextualize, problematize, and offer some insights for moving beyond the problem of monolingual comparative normativity in (psycho) linguistic research on bilingualism. We argue that, in the vast majority of cases, juxtaposing (functional) monolinguals to bilinguals fails to offer what the comparison is supposedly intended to do: meet the standards of empirical control in line with the scientific method. Instead, the default nature of monolingual comparative normativity has historically contributed to inequalities in many facets of bilingualism research and continues to impede progress on multiple levels. Beyond framing our views on the matter, we offer some epistemological considerations and methodological alternatives to this standard practice that improve empirical rigor while fostering increased diversity, inclusivity, and equity in our field

Monolingual comparative normativity in bilingualism research is out of “control”: Arguments and alternatives

Herein, we contextualize, problematize, and offer some insights for moving beyond the problem of monolingual comparative normativity in (psycho) linguistic research on bilingualism. We argue that, in the vast majority of cases, juxtaposing (functional) monolinguals to bilinguals fails to offer what the comparison is supposedly intended to do: meet the standards of empirical control in line with the scientific method. Instead, the default nature of monolingual comparative normativity has historically contributed to inequalities in many facets of bilingualism research and continues to impede progress on multiple levels. Beyond framing our views on the matter, we offer some epistemological considerations and methodological alternatives to this standard practice that improve empirical rigor while fostering increased diversity, inclusivity, and equity in our field.publishedVersio