Colour - Language as a Meddler Flashcards
Nature of Colour
Continuous but we tend to categorise it
Roberson et al (2000) - first studies on effect of language on non-linguistic colour memory
Berinmo (Papua New Guinea) - 5 colour terms with good agreeability, no blue-green, but a nol-wor in a position non-existent in English
Used a 2AFC task in probing memory of a colour (blue/green) over interval of 30s, with foil being either within or across same colour category
Both languages advantage for across-category distinctions in respective colour boundaries, but other-language boundary makes little differences whether across or within-category
Roberson and Davies (2000) - Colour Memory
Same task as Roberson et al (2000) but added either no interference, spatial interference, or verbal interference task in a 5-10s delay between original and test stimuli
Between-category advantage (Roberson et al., 2000) disappears under verbal interference but no others > language affects colour cognition, but only when available for online use (Wolff & Holmes, 2010)
Winawer et al (2007) - Colour Words and Colour Perception
Russian distinction between dark and light blue, English doesn’t have this
Took colours perceptually equidistant in space but fell either within- or between-category in Russian and presented triads to participants, titrated to each participant’s colour boundaries for more sensitive measure
Russian speakers faster matching stimuli (discrimination) between-category, but English no difference across trial types > discrimination faster when colours cross boundary in own language
Between-category advantage in Russians disrupted by verbal interference but not spatial or none, with disruption effect more pronounced when colours smaller perceptual distance > suggests when perceptually ambiguous, language can help inform and facilitate information on perceptual decision-making (language as a meddler)
Gilbert et al (2006) - Colour Perception Lateralisation Effect
LVF projects to RH and RVF projects to LH (where language localised)
Predicted (1) between-category discrimination better in RVF than LVF; (2) within-category discrimination slower in RVF than LVF; (3) lateralisation effects disrupted under verbal interference
English pps performed popout task where full circle of colours given (blues and greens), and tasked with indicating odd one out from four colours (labelled greens and blues), with either being between- or within-categories
As predicted, category advantage in RVF but not LVF, with effect disappearing under verbal interference but not visual
Roberson et al (2008)
Supporting evidence for Gilbert et al (2006) with lateralisation effects seen in similar method but with Korean ‘green’/’yellow-green’ distinction, with English pps not having effects
Siok et al (2009)
fMRI study replicated behavioural effect of Gilbert et al (2006) and showed activity in typical language brain areas, correlated with categorical status of colours in RVF but not in LVF
Activity correlated with categorically related variation in signal from earlier perceptual areas (V2 and V3) suggesting languages areas exhibit top-down feedback on earlier areas > language as a meddler
Franklin et al (2008)
Pre-linguistic infants and toddlers show categorical perception lateralised to LVF, as opposed to adults, but in toddlers, found in RVF when learned colour words > suggests RVF effect requires learning of colour terms
Criticism - Witzel and Gegenfurtner (2011)
Failed replication of Gilbert et al (2006)
Perhaps because visual search tasks arguably do not rely on memory, but other tasks may rely on memory / online labelling, meaning effects could occur at a later response stage
Criticism - Alvarez (2012) (Lateralisation)
Lateralisation effect for perceptual distance also found, independently of whether linguistic colour boundaries involved, suggesting lateralisation of Gilbert et al (2006) caused by perceptual distance effects, perhaps from questionable uniformity of CIELAB and Munsell blue/green regions > between-category colours may be easier and further in perceptual distance than within-category colours
Showed biases in attention to LVF or response bias to LVF systematically leads to hemispheric asymmetries, perhaps explaining lateralisation effects
Criticism - Alvarez (2012) (Interference)
Found verbal interference to not necessarily disrupt use of language, but rather slow performance in general > differences in RT to targets separated by varying degrees of perceptual distance from distractors found under spatial, but not verbal interference, using only greens and not boundary-crossing colour pairs
Attention biases in interference task > imbalances of attention allocated to each task (main and interference) such that increasing attention to one task decreased performance on a concurrent task > Wetzel and Gegenfurtner (2011) much lower accuracy for verbal task than Gilbert et al (2006), suggests pps devoted more attention to visual search in prior experiment
