Talker-specific predictions during language processing

ABSTRACT Language comprehension is shaped by world knowledge. After hearing about “a farm animal,” meanings of typical (“cow”) versus atypical exemplars (“ox”) are more accessible, as evidenced by N400 responses. Moreover, atypical exemplars elicit a larger post-N400 frontal positivity than typical and incongruous (“ivy”) exemplars, indexing the integration of unexpected information. Do listeners adapt this category knowledge to specific talkers? We first replicated typicality effects in the auditory modality. Then, we extended the design to a two-talker context: talkers alternated cueing (Bob: “Susan, name a farm animal”) and answering (Susan: “cow”). Critically, participants first heard interviews in which one talker revealed strong associations with atypical exemplars (Susan works on an ox farm). We observed increased frontal positivity to a typical exemplar (“cow”) said by Susan compared to Bob, indicating participants appreciated that the typical exemplar was atypical for Susan. These results suggest that comprehenders can tailor their expectations to the talker.

[1]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Chapter 1 Time for Meaning: Electrophysiology Provides Insights into the Dynamics of Representation and Processing in Semantic Memory , 2009 .

[2]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  The Neural Integration of Speaker and Message , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[3]  Sarah C. Creel Preschoolers' use of talker information in on-line comprehension. , 2012, Child development.

[4]  E. Moreno,et al.  Tell me sweet little lies: An event-related potentials study on the processing of social lies , 2016, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[5]  Sarah C. Creel,et al.  How Talker Identity Relates to Language Processing , 2011, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[6]  M. Rugg The effects of semantic priming and work repetition on event-related potentials. , 1985, Psychophysiology.

[7]  Salim Roukos,et al.  Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. , 1983, Psychophysiology.

[8]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Pace Yourself: Intraindividual Variability in Context Use Revealed by Self-paced Event-related Brain Potentials , 2017, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[9]  Hans-Jochen Heinze,et al.  Context effects in a category verification task as assessed by event-related brain potential (ERP) measures , 1998, Biological Psychology.

[10]  John K. Kruschke,et al.  Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan , 2014 .

[11]  Paul-Christian Bürkner,et al.  Advanced Bayesian Multilevel Modeling with the R Package brms , 2017, R J..

[12]  D. Stuss,et al.  Electrophysiological manifestations of typicality judgment , 1988, Brain and Language.

[13]  G. Altmann,et al.  Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference , 1999, Cognition.

[14]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Age-related and individual differences in the use of prediction during language comprehension , 2010, Brain and Language.

[15]  Kathy E. Johnson,et al.  Effects of varying levels of expertise on the basic level of categorization. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[16]  M. Kutas,et al.  Fractionating the Word Repetition Effect with Event-Related Potentials , 1991, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[17]  Sarah C. Creel,et al.  Heeding the voice of experience: The role of talker variation in lexical access , 2008, Cognition.

[18]  W. Montague,et al.  Category norms of verbal items in 56 categories A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms , 1969 .

[19]  Karl P. Hunt,et al.  Category-item frequency and category-name meaningfulness (m'): Taxonomic norms for 84 categories. , 1971 .

[20]  C. Van Petten,et al.  Prediction during language comprehension: benefits, costs, and ERP components. , 2012, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[21]  S. Brown-Schmidt,et al.  Talker-specific perceptual adaptation during online speech perception , 2012 .

[22]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Finding the right word: Hemispheric asymmetries in the use of sentence context information , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[23]  Dave F. Kleinschmidt,et al.  Robust speech perception: recognize the familiar, generalize to the similar, and adapt to the novel. , 2015, Psychological review.

[24]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[25]  Gina R Kuperberg,et al.  What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? , 2016, Language, cognition and neuroscience.

[26]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Multiple effects of sentential constraint on word processing , 2007, Brain Research.

[27]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Accent modulates access to word meaning: Evidence for a speaker-model account of spoken word recognition , 2017, Cognitive Psychology.

[28]  Per B. Brockhoff,et al.  lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models , 2017 .

[29]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). , 2011, Annual review of psychology.

[30]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  A Rose by Any Other Name: Long-Term Memory Structure and Sentence Processing , 1999 .

[31]  Marta Kutas,et al.  Quantifiers more or less quantify online: ERP evidence for partial incremental interpretation. , 2010, Journal of memory and language.

[32]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[33]  Rachel Ryskin,et al.  People as contexts in conversation , 2015 .

[34]  Carrie N. Jackson,et al.  Speaker-specific processing of anomalous utterances , 2019, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[35]  Andrea Weber,et al.  When One Person's Mistake Is Another's Standard Usage: The Effect of Foreign Accent on Syntactic Processing , 2012, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[36]  Kara D. Federmeier Thinking ahead: the role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. , 2007, Psychophysiology.

[37]  Mante S. Nieuwland,et al.  Large-scale replication study reveals a limit on probabilistic prediction in language comprehension , 2018, eLife.

[38]  Douglas L. Nelson,et al.  Category Name and Instance Norms for 106 Categories of Various Sizes , 1982 .

[39]  Mante S. Nieuwland,et al.  When Peanuts Fall in Love: N400 Evidence for the Power of Discourse , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[40]  Curt Burgess,et al.  Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence , 1996 .

[41]  D. Dahan,et al.  Talker adaptation in speech perception: Adjusting the signal or the representations? , 2008, Cognition.

[42]  Sarah C. Creel Preschoolers’ flexible use of talker information during word learning , 2014 .

[43]  Sarah Brown-Schmidt,et al.  Talker-specific learning in amnesia: Insight into mechanisms of adaptive speech perception , 2014, Cortex.

[44]  R. Wang,et al.  Listeners use speaker identity to access representations of spatial perspective during online language comprehension , 2016, Cognition.

[45]  J. Tanaka,et al.  Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder? , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[46]  M. Rugg Event-related brain potentials dissociate repetition effects of high-and low-frequency words , 1990, Memory & cognition.