Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Cognition, Emotion & Development > Reading > Flashcards

Reading Flashcards

1
Q

LANGUAGE

A
  • “… man has an instinctive tendency to speak as we see in the babble of young kids while no kids have instinct to bake/brew/write…”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

IMPORTANCE IN COGNITION

A
  • written/spoken/nonverbal
  • communicate our thoughts/ideas/feelings/needs
  • skills allow us to put thoughts into words (cognitive) emotions (emotional) to then give encountered people (social)
  • influences world perception
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

WORD DEFINITION

A 
- form (sign) w/function (what's signified)
FORM
- pronunciation (phonology)
- spelling pattern (orthography)
FUNCTION
- meaning (semantics)
- syntactic role
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

SPOKEN WORD FORM

A
  • phenomes (smaller sound unit) sequence
  • organised into syllables
  • w/stress pattern (ie. contEnt VS cOntent)
  • tone/pitch pattern (some languages ie. Chinese; eg. ma (level/rising/dipping/falling) = mother/hemp/horse/scold)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

WRITTEN WORD FORM

A
  • graphemes sequence (lines/curves/strokes)
  • dif language scripts use dif principles:
    ALPHABETIC = graphemes represent phonemes (not always transparent); ie. Arabic/Thai/Hebrew/English
    SYLLABIC = graphemes = syllables; ie. Korean/Kana
    IDEOGRAPHIC/IOGOGRAPHIC = graphemes = meaning units; ie. Chinese/Kanji
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

COGNITIVE READING ANALYSIS

A
  • skill performed for 5000+ years; invented in ancient Sumeria (Iraq); many still illiterate
  • for most literate adults = familiar/automatic as breathing; impossible not to if viewing text
  • complex despite ease/automaticity; multiple components
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

LEXICAL ACCESS

A
  • components of reading = speech/text -> words; signal -> meaning
    1. identify letters; represent sequence
    2. identify words
    3. retrieve syntactic class (other usage properties)/word meaning (concepts)
    4. interpret sentence structure/meaning
    5. interpret intention of speaker/writer (via extralinguistic context & knowledge)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

SPELLING/PRONOUNCIATION/MEANING

A
  • spelling/pro = relation varies across languages; semi-regular in English
  • spelling/meaning = arbitrary relation
  • pro/meaning = arbitrary relation
  • SO reading requires process that identifies written form (ie. matched to learned memorised form); retrieves associated meaning
  • if script = phonologically transparent, translation spelling/pro = done via rule w/o word identification
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

WORD IDENTIFICATION

A
  • w know +100k word forms
  • typical reader identities 2/3s
  • presentation rates = 10p/s; some comprehension ok
    EVIDENCE
  • introspective reports; observation/measurement/manipulation of beh; measurement/manipulation of brain activity
    ANALYSIS LEVELS
  • experiential; computational/functional (processes/modules/architecture); neural (how neurons implement computations/where they are)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

BEHAVIOURAL MEASURE

A

ARTIFICIAL
- lab tasks designed to exercise/capture component process
- typically discrete stimulus -> response tasks allowing accuracy/reaction time measured to each stimuli
ON-LINE
- measures made during continuous “natural” performance of skill

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

SINGLE WORD IDENTIFICATION LAB TASKS

A
  • naming reaction time; non-essential word identification for “scombroid” BUT is for “pint”
  • lexical decision (word/nonword) reaction time (dracknell/child)
  • we can earn word recognition by getting people to identity individual letters in strings
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

WORD-SUPERIORITY EFFECT IN BRIEF EXPOSURES

A

REICHER (1969)

  • task is to identify a briefly flashed letter
  • performance better in word condition in spire of control for guessing (ie. d + k = word)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

LAB PHENOMENA

A

WORD SUPERIORITY EFFECT
- greater accuracy of letter identification in word context than matched non-word
FREQUENCY EFFECTS
- RTs for lexical decision/sematic categorisation; naming shorter for words more frequent in language
SENTENCE CONTEXT EFFECTS
- RTs for lexical decision; naming shorter when word presented in sentence context of which its a plausible continuation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

NORMAL READING EYE FIXATION DURATIONS

A

RAYNER & POLLATSEK (1988)

  • fixation durations = 66-416 range; 218 msec
  • saccade length = 1-18 range; 8.5 characters
  • regressions = 10-15%
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

‘MOVING WINDOW’ TECHNIQUE

A

RAYNER & MCCONCKIE et al

  • window extends 8 characters after + before fixation; reduction til reading performance suffers = shows how far ahead of/behind info is being taken in
  • perceptual span (letters taken in) = 3-4 left letters; 14-15 right
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

WORD READING THUS FAR

A
  • spelling pattern (orthography) -> meaning (semantics)
  • arbitrary relationship; requires spelling pattern identification
  • investigating lexical identification requires performance measure in tasks ie. lexical decision/categorisation/word naming, finding:
  • higher frequency words recognised easier/faster
  • letters easier recognised in word context
  • words easier recognised in sentence context
  • similar frequency/context effects for reading fixation durations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

THEORIES OF WORD IDENTIFICATION

A
  • finding best match between input-1000s spelling patterns in memory requires comparison process; one serial pattern/all parallel patterns? questioned
    SERIAL SEARCH MODEL
    MODIFIED SERIAL MODEL
    PARALLEL-MATCHING WORD-DETECTOR MODEL
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

SERIAL SEARCH MODEL

A

FORSTER (1976)

  • encode spelling pattern
  • compare one at a time to each word-form stored in mental dictionary
  • if match found, retrieve meaning/pronunciation; if not, continue search
  • in order of language frequency for efficiency; match faster for higher-frequency words
  • BUT simple; thousands of successive comparisons p/s; easy in computer, too fast in neurons
19
Q

MODIFIED SERIAL MODEL

A

MURRAY & FORESTER (2004)

  • mental lexicon of word-forms divided into “bins”
  • quick/dirty initial process categorises spelling pattern to select correct bin
  • serial search (frequency ordered) within bin
20
Q

PARALLEL-MATCHING WORD-DETECTOR MODEL

A

MCCLELLAND & RUMELHART (1981)

  • interactive activation model with detector units
  • TIME -> feature units -> letter units -> word units = top-down activation of letter units by word units; explains effect of context
  • accounting for word superiority effect; better recognition of a letter in word context
21
Q

FORSTER’S SERIAL SEARCH MODEL

A
  • frequent words quickly recognised as:
  • motivated by its ready account of frequency effect; lexicon searched in order of frequency
  • prediction = advance frequency knowledge; if helps, lexicon decision helped mostly in low frequency words
  • search can skip high frequency part of list
22
Q

IA-STYLE PARELLEL-MATCHING PROCESS

A
  • frequent words quickly recognised as:
  • most-used detectors most sensitive (ie. higher resting levels/stronger connections; faster to activate)
  • prediction = advance knowledge of frequency should help decision most for high frequency words
23
Q

ADVANCED FREQUENCY KNOWLEDGE X LEXICAL DECISION

A

GORDON (1983)

  • high/medium/low frequency words given
  • mixed (can’t predict frequency) VS separate blocks (can)
  • knowing frequency in advance helps for high NOT low frequency words; consistent w/parallel NOT serial model
24
Q

BRAIN EVIDENCE

A

PINKER (1997)

  • “… the mind is what the brain does…”
  • cognitive psychologists want to model what the mind (embodied in brain) does
  • to inform models, make use of:
  • brain-damaged patient performance
  • non-invasive measures/manipulation of brain activation in performance
25
Q

NEUROPSYCH X ARCHITECTURE OF READING

A
  • from print to meaning via pronunciation/direct?
  • long before we learn to read we recognise many spoken words and their meanings/produce words to express meaning; pathways include:
    1. text -> orthography (spelling pattern); DIRECT -> semantics (meaning) -> phonology (pronunciation) -> output
    2. text -> orthography (spelling pattern); PHONOLOGICALLY-MEDIATED ACCESS -> phonology (pronunciation) -> output
26
Q

PHONOLOGICAL DYSLEXIA

A
  • evidence that phonological mediation isn’t necessary aka. damage to phonological route (phono dyslexia)
  • some brain-damaged patients can understand some written words but can’t access sound pattern:
    ELLIS & SIN (1983)
  • patient RD; CHAOS -> kwost; people muddled = chost
    LEVINE et al (1982)
  • patient EB; reading comprehension = slow but accurate; unable to choose which 2/4 words sounded/rhymed same
27
Q

HOMOPHONE CATEGORISATION ERRORS

A

VAN ORDEN (1987)

  • hare VS harp/hair; more false positive errors to lure that sound the same as category members than to visually similar control items
  • why are more mistakes made for homophones when classifying by meaning?
  • access meaning via phonology
28
Q

ROUTE CONTRIBUTION TO NORMAL READING

A
  • recall depends on familiarity w/word
  • if both test word (ie. hair) and homophone (hare) = high frequency, homophone effect disappears
  • high frequency words don’t produce much of homophone effect; low frequencies do
  • if repeated experience = strong O -> S mapping (ie. high frequency word), spelling activates meaning fast enough for semantic decision/comprehension before indirect meaning activation via pronunciation; if not (ie. low frequency), phonological mediation contributes
29
Q

TEXT/DISCOURSE COMPREHENSION END PRODUCT

A
  • mental model/situational representation = rep of meaning conveyed/constructed in memory as we read (who is doing what/to what/whom/where/when) in IRL/imaginary world
  • active newly formed rep in WM (aka. on-stage play)
  • language/text NOT only vehicle for mental models (direct experience ie. movie also does this)
  • model is NOT represented in language but propositional “language of thought” specifying elements/relationships (though linguistic tokens (ie. names) CAN be tagged)
  • not just pictorial (though imagery represents some elements)
30
Q

EARLY-LATER STAGES OF COMPREHENSION

A

identify words -> retrieve:

  • SYNTACTIC class (other usage properties) -> interpret sentence structure (syntax) -> interpret/link constituent propositions -> interpret intention of speaker/writer -> MENTAL MODEL
  • WORD meaning (concepts) -> interpret/link constituent propositions -> interpret intention of speaker/writer -> MENTAL MODEL
  • (all combos always include mix of extralinguistic context/knowledge)
31
Q

THE SPEECH ART

A
  • sentence meaning = propositions stated + speech art (querying/stating/denying, etc.)
  • sentences give explicit/implicit propositions to extract/link (ie. “my daughter phoned me from Australia” = X is Y’s mother; Y located in A at T (time); Y phoned X at T)
  • understanding connected discourse requires linking given/new propositions within/across sentences ie. via co-reference (ie. “she was driving to Broome” = Y (at T, A) on way to A2 (Broome); Y driving (a vehicle))
  • comprehension activates/adds propositions to existing knowledge in memory
32
Q

BUILDING PROPOSITIONS

A
  • sentences = tree structures/ordered hierarchy of constituents (phrases) occupying essential roles in relation to main verb (subject)
  • constituents replaceable by others of same type w/o changing structure = innumerable possible sentences BUT limited structure range p/language
33
Q

SENTENCE STRUCTURE CLUES

A

WORD ORDER
- bishop admired actress VS actress admired bishop
FUNCTION WORDS
- opposed to content words
- small fixed sets of grammar words structure-signalling ie.
- the/a/an = determiners; introduce noun phrases
- who/which/that = relative pronouns; introduce relative clauses
WORD-MODIFYING “MORPHOLOGICAL INFLECTIONS”
- not many in English
- signalling number/case/tense etc.
- dogs/dog/dog’s
- I talk/talked
- tall/taller/tallest

34
Q

PARSING BRAIN MODULE EVIDENCE

A
  • parsing = specialised structure-computing
  • Broca’s aphasia patients struggle w/comprehending:
  • syntactically complex sentences (ie. put small round green circle to left of brown square above triangle)
  • simple reversible sentences (ie. pictures of dancer/clown applauding each other; selection)
  • sentences dependent on affixes/function words for meaning
35
Q

LEVELS OF LANGUAGE AMBIGUITY

A 
LEXIAL AMBIGUITY
- words w/several distinct meanings (ie. bank/fine)
SYNTACTIC AMBIGUITY 
- ambiguous sentence structures
- ie. "visiting relatives can be boring"
SPEECH ACT AMBIGUITY
- pilot: "We are now at take-off"
- tower: "OK" (permission?)
AMBIGUITY OF REFERENCE
- ie. John pointed out Bill's friend, Paul, who gave HIM HIS hat
36
Q

INTERPRETNG WRITE/SPEAKER INTENTIONS

A
  • utterances have surface forms = directly indicate speech act (ie. declaration/question etc)
  • any form uttered in suitable context w/particular intonation can perform indirect speech act (ie. “It’s cold in here” + looking meaningfully at door = close it request)
  • intended speech act must be inferred via prosody/extralinguistic cues (gaze/body language)/context/general knowledge
  • social/legal acts signalled via particular performatives (phrases) but work only in felicitous context (ie. I declare thee man and wife)
37
Q

INFERENCE X COMPREHENSION

A
  • discourse explicitly states only some propositions needed for coherent mental model construction; infer rest based on:
  • extralinguistic context (immediate environment/assumed status/intentions of speaker/writer)
  • prosody/body language (gesture/expression)
  • linguistic context (what’s been said already)
  • general knowledge (properties/characteristics/schemas)
  • communication conventions (relevance)
38
Q

INFERENCE EXAMPLES

A

CONSEQUENCE
- actress fell from the window on her 14th floor flat onto piazza = death inference
INSTRUMENT
- she was driving to Broom = vehicle instrument inference
SPACE/TIME
- Alex went to lecture; found dead frog under seat = time/location of action inference
CAUSE
- students carelessly threw cig; fire destroyed campus = students were cause of fire inference

39
Q

AUTOMATIC INFERENCING

A

GARNHAM (1979)

  • tested cued verbatim recall for sentence lists (ie. John cooked the chips)
  • FRY > COOK retrieval
  • we infer automatically and remember inferences as if explicitly stated even when instructed to trust verbatim
40
Q

SOLVING LEXICAL AMBIGUITIES

A
  • many words/structures = ambiguous till later info instructs interpretation (ie. he went to bank TO cash cheque/catch fish)
  • usually disambiguate meaning unconscious of ambiguity/noticeable perturbation BUT average fixation durations = longer on ambiguous words
  • sometimes have to backtrack to make sense of lexical ambiguity (ie. rapid righting/writing of the canoe saved him) or syntactic ambiguity (ie. the horse raced past the barn fell)
  • garden path sentences in reading = regression eye moves
41
Q

LOCAL AMBIGUITY STRATEGIES

A

MINIMAL COMMITMENT STRATEGY
- postpone interpretation until all potentially disambiguating info available = NOT PLAUSIBLE! priming recognition via incomplete contexts indicates incremental comprehension
SERIAL STRATEGY
- construct most probably interpretation; back track if wrong
PARALLEL STRATEGY
- construct multiple interpretations; delete the wrong ones
ALL REQUIRE WM!

42
Q

SEMANTIC PRIMING EFFECT

A

MEYER & SCHVANENELDT (1971)
- index of activation of meaning
- provides measure of activation of meaning of prime
- use to ask if both meanings are ambiguous word activates
SWINNEY et al (1979)
- “government plagued… man was not surprised to find spiders, roaches and other bugs in the corner of his room…”
- ant = appropriate; -38ms/-53m RT immediately/after
- spy = inappropriate; -31ms/-1ms RT immediately/after
- parallel activation of meanings = inappropriate meaning suppressed

43
Q

FIXATION DURATIONS X LEXICAL AMBIGUITY

A

RAYNER et al

  • if no disambiguating context before + equal frequency meanings = ambiguous > unambiguous fixations
  • if disambiguating context before ambiguous word = ambiguous = unambiguous fixations (both meanings un-activated)
  • unless contextually appropriate meaning lower in frequency = higher frequency meaning gets activated even if not supported by prior context
44
Q

SUMMARY

A
  • meanings of ambiguous word activated in parallel BUT not w/equal strength
  • relative strength of activation depends on:
  • degree of contextual constraint available
  • frequency of use of each meaning

Cognition, Emotion & Development (17 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions