1 / 1

Glasgow Language Processing

Introduction Only 2 studies have investigated the interaction of emotionality and word frequency.

meagan
Download Presentation

Glasgow Language Processing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Introduction • Only 2 studies have investigated the interaction of emotionality and word frequency. • Nakic et al. (2006) carried out a lexical decision task (LDT) using a 2x3 design manipulating word frequency (high and low, HF & LF) and word emotionality (‘highly’ negative, ‘mildly’ negative, and neutral). They found main effects of frequency (HF<LF) and emotion (highly negative < mildly negative < neutral), but no interaction. • Scott et al. (2006) carried out an LDT using a 2x3 design to investigate word frequency (HF, LF) and emotion (positive, negative, neutral) and found main effects as well as an interaction: • The present study • Replicate and extend the results of Scott et al. (2006) in the context of normal reading. • Specifically, record subjects eye movements as they read high and low frequency positive, negative and • neutral targets presented in neutral sentences. Results: Gaze Duration • Main effect of Frequency (p<0.001). • Main Effect of Emotion (p<0.01). • Significant Interaction (p<0.001). • For LF words: • Negative < Positive < Neutral • For HF words: • Positive < Negative = Neutral Glasgow Language Processing • Main effect of Frequency (p<0.001). • Main effect of Emotion (p<0.001). • Significant Interaction (p<0.05). • For LF words: • Positive =Negative<Neutral • For HF words: • Positive <Negative= Neutral Results: First Fixation Duration • Main effect of Frequency (p<0.05). • Main effect of Emotion (p<0.05). • Significant Interaction (p<0.01). • For LF words: • Negative<Neutral • Positive<Neutral;Positive>Negative • For HF words: • Positive <Negative= Neutral Emotion Word Processing: Evidence From Eye Movements crucify betray industry owlavenuefestive astonished cheerblackmailhostagebus history stovehard intercourse bravetrauma sinful beesdrownstomach wine alert passion casinocockroachinsult passage column aloof dollar Christmas sexyslaughterconfusedprivacyyellow exercise couple admiredshark surgery rejected skull errand umbrella happy life partyenraged disgust cancer rapeforkmanner win promotion lovepressure war angerelbowbarrel progress desire car intimateaccident firekillersalad slush curtains nude fireworks eroticevil pain controlling radiator kettlemiracle treasure inspiredweapon divorce panic bland violinjoke valentine reunionassault surgery tumour alley sentiment aroused ecstasy glorymutilate hurricane thief elevator prairie rescue laughter flirt Graham G. Scott, Patrick J. O’Donnell, & Sara C. Sereno University of Glasgow • Materials & Design • 2 x 3 within-subject design: Frequency (LF, HF) x Word Type (Pos, Neut, Neg). • Word type was defined by arousal and valence ratings: • Arousal Valence Frequency Length • (lo-hi, 1-9)(neg-pos, 1-9)(#per mill)(characters)Example • LF Pos 6.7 7.6 8 7 valentine • Neut 4.5 5.2 7 7 appliance • Neg 6.6 2.4 7 7 suffocate • HF Pos 6.6 7.8 62 6 exercise • Neut 4.3 5.2 67 6 village • Neg 6.7 2.6 50 6 accident • Note: Word frequency values: British National Corpus (BNC). • Arousal and valence ratings: Affective Norms of English Words (ANEW) (Bradley & Lang, 1999) • 15 words of each type (LF-Pos, LF-Neut, LF-Neg, HF-Pos, HF-Neut, HF-Neg) → total 90 words; • matched for frequency, length, number of syllables, syntactic category. • 30 sentence triples to accommodate target word triples. Each subject read each target in different sentence • frames. 3 subject groups, so that each target was viewed in all 3 sentence frames. • Sentence framekissnews bomb • 1 Phoebe discussed the _____ at great length with her friends. • 2Michelle dreamt about the _____ every night for weeks. • 3Tom delivered the _____ with great care and attention. • Discussion • Significant Frequency x Emotion interactions occurred in first fixation and gaze duration measures. • Results seem to favour a perceptual defence based theory, such as Taylor’s (1991) Mobilisation- • Minimisation hypothesis: • For LF words, high arousal words (positive & negative) are processed more easily than neutral words. • For HF positive words, high arousal levels facilitate processing without any cost incurred from their • highly activated (i.e., HF) positive valence. • For HF negative words, initial processing facilitation is offset by the disruptive effects of highly • activated (i.e., HF) negative valence. • These data suggest that an early identification of the emotional tone of words leads to differential • processing. Specifically, HF negative words seem to attract additional cognitive resources. • This is consistent with a time-line in which emotional quality either accompanies or precedes (but does • not follow) lexical access (Taylor & Fragopanogos, 2005). Method Participants 44 native English speakers with normal vision who were not diagnosed as dyslexic. Apparatus Fourward Technologies Generation 5.5 Dual-Purkinje Eyetracker. Procedure Participants read single-line sentences while their eye movements were monitored. Y/N comprehension questions followed sentences on half the trials. References & Acknowledgements Bradley, M.M., & Lang, P.J. (1999). Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW). The NIMH Center for the Study of Emotion and Attention, University of Florida. British National Corpus (1995). http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk. Nakic, M., Smith, B.W., Busis, S., Vythilingam, M., & Blair, R.J.R. (2006). The impact of affect and frequency on lexical decision: The role of the amygdala and inferior frontal cortex. NeuroImage, 31, 1752-1761. Scott, G.G., O’Donnell, P.J., Leuthold, H., & Sereno, S.C. (2006, August). Emotion word processing: Behavioural and electrophysiological evidence. Poster presented at the Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP) meeting, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Taylor, S.E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67-85. Taylor, J.G., & Fragopanagos, N.F. (2005). The interaction of attention and emotion.Neural Networks, 18, 353-369. This work was conducted as partial fulfilment of a PhD at the Univ of Glasgow for G.G. Scott, funded by an ESRC postgraduate fellowship. Corresponding author: g.scott@psy.gla.ac.uk. (marg) (marg)

More Related