Bögels, S.

Fairs, A.

Meyer, A.

MPG.PuRe

 Serial or parallel dual-task language processing: Production planning and comprehension are not carried out in parallel  Amie Fairs1, Sara Bögels2 & Antje S. Meyer1,2  1 Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; 2 Donders Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands   More information: amie.fairs@mpi.nl   People appear to engage in the dual-task of planning speech while comprehending others [1]. This suggests that the process of lexical selection may occur in parallel with comprehension processes. Dual-tasking research finds that lexical selection does not occur in parallel with a secondary non-linguistic task if that task requires an overt response [2], but does occur in parallel if a covert response is required [3]. However, little dual-tasking research investigates dual-tasking with two linguistic tasks [4]. Thus, here we ask:   1. Is lexical selection carried out serially or in parallel in a dual-task? 2. How does overtly responding to the second task affect serial/parallel processing? 3. How does a secondary linguistic vs. non-linguistic task affect serial/parallel processing?   • Lexical selection is carried out serially, and not in parallel with another task, regardless of the type of response (overt or covert) given to task 1 (contrary to [3]), or of whether both tasks are linguistic or not. • General interference arises when combining two linguistic tasks compared to one linguistic and one non-linguistic task. • The task choice paradigm is susceptible to individual participant strategies. • Results suggest that lexical selection in dialogue should not happen in parallel with comprehension.  Introduction Experiment 1: Two response   Task 1 (T1): tone or syllable identification/choice Task 2 (T2): picture naming with distractors Lexical selection is indexed by semantic interference: Presence of interference = serial processing Absence of interference = parallel processing [2,3]          Experiment 1: T1 – button press; T2 – picture naming. Experiments 2 & 3: T1 – task choice for T2 based on sound; T2 - name picture or read distractor. Dual-tasking experiments + stoel Discussion Experiment 2: One response   Experiment 3: One response Semantic interference equally found in all conditions, suggesting that lexical selection and identification are serial processes. Latencies longer at 0ms linguistic than 0ms non-linguistic, with no difference at 1000ms.  1. hear T1 sound 2. SOA 0ms or 1000ms 3. T2 picture with distractor         (related or unrelated) 4. Response Semantic interference only found in linguistic condition. No replication of parallel lexical selection and tone decision [3] – because of the SOA mixing? Latencies longer at 0ms linguistic than 0ms non-linguistic, with no difference at 1000ms.  Semantic interference equally found in all conditions, suggesting that lexical selection and task decision are serial processes. Latencies longer at 0ms linguistic than 0ms non-linguistic, with no difference at 1000ms.  REFS: [1] Bögels, Magyari, & Levinson. (2015). Scientific reports, 5. [2] Piai, Roelofs, & Schriefers. (2014). JEP:LMC, 40(1). [3] Piai, Roelofs, & Schriefers. (2015). Acta Psychol, 157. [4] Fargier, & Laganaro. (2016). PLoS ONE, 11(12). mixed SOA blocked SOA * * * * * * ? ? * * * * 

Serial or parallel dual-task language processing: Production planning and comprehension are not carried out in parallel

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

MPG.PuRe