Trial-Level and Contiguous Syntactic Adaptation: A Common Domain-General Mechanism at Play?

Garden-path sentences generate processing difficulty due to a more preferred parse conflicting with incoming parsing information. A domain-general cognitive control mechanism has been argued to help identify and resolve these parsing conflicts. This cognitive control mechanism has been argued to underlie adaptation to garden path processing at the trial level (conflict adaptation) and contiguously over the experiment (syntactic adaptation) in independent literature. The strongest evidence for its domain generality comes from garden-path processing being facilitated when preceded by a non-syntactic conflict (e.g., Stroop). This has been reliably observed in the visual world paradigm, which, like Stroop, requires irrelevant visual information to be suppressed. We tested the domain generality of conflict adaptation and its relationship to contiguous syntactic adaptation across four experiments (n = 562). To eliminate the visual object confound, the Stroop task was followed by a sentence-reading task. We observed Stroop and ambiguity effects, but no conflict adaptation in each experiment. Contiguous syntactic adaptation was replicated and most compatible with the parser changing its expectations and/or improving revision. While the data largely fail to support a domain-general cognitive control mechanism, a language-specific one could operate in both trial and contiguous syntactic adaptation and is worth future exploration

Specifying how intervention content is communicated:Development of a Style of Delivery Ontology

Background: Investigating and enhancing the effectiveness of behaviour change interventions requires detailed and consistent specification of all aspects of interventions. We need to understand not only their content, that is the specific techniques, but also the source, mode, schedule, and style in which this content is delivered. Delivery style refers to the manner by which content is communicated to intervention participants. This paper reports the development of an ontology for specifying the style of delivery of interventions that depend on communication. This forms part of the Behaviour Change Intervention Ontology, which aims to cover all aspects of behaviour change intervention scenarios.Methods: The Style of Delivery Ontology was developed following methods for ontology development used in the Human Behaviour-Change Project, with seven key steps: 1) defining the scope of the ontology, 2) identifying key entities and developing their preliminary definitions by reviewing 100 behaviour change intervention evaluation reports and existing classification systems, 3) refining the ontology by piloting the ontology through annotations of 100 reports, 4) stakeholder review by eight behavioural science and public health experts, 5) inter-rater reliability testing through annotating 100 reports using the ontology, 6) specifying ontological relationships between entities, and 7) disseminating and maintaining the ontology.Results: The resulting ontology is a five-level hierarchical structure comprising 145 unique entities relevant to style of delivery. Key areas include communication processes, communication styles, and attributes of objects used in communication processes. Inter-rater reliability for annotating intervention evaluation reports was α=0.77 (good) for those familiar with the ontology and α=0.62 (acceptable) for those unfamiliar with it.Conclusions: The Style of Delivery Ontology can be used for both annotating and describing behaviour change interventions in a consistent and coherent manner, thereby improving evidence comparison, synthesis, replication, and implementation of effective interventions

ICBM 2021

Presentations from the HBCP team at the 2021 International Congress of Behavioural Medicin

CBC Conference Symposium 2020

Presentations from the HBCP team at UCL's Centre for Behaviour Change conference 202

EHPS 2022

Presentations from the HBCP team at the 36th Annual Conference of the European Health Psychology Societ