10 likes | 102 Views
Language Experience S hapes C ognition : Comparing Memory for Chinese and English Words Jeffrey D. Wammes, 1 Myra A. Fernandes, 1 Janet H. Hsiao 2 1 University of Waterloo, 2 University of Hong Kong. ‘R’. ‘R’. ‘R’. ‘R’. ‘M’. ‘M’. ‘M’. ‘M’. ‘B’. ‘B’. ‘B’. ‘B’. INTRODUCTION
E N D
Language Experience Shapes Cognition:Comparing Memory for Chinese and English Words Jeffrey D. Wammes,1 Myra A. Fernandes,1 Janet H. Hsiao2 1 University of Waterloo, 2 University of Hong Kong ‘R’ ‘R’ ‘R’ ‘R’ ‘M’ ‘M’ ‘M’ ‘M’ ‘B’ ‘B’ ‘B’ ‘B’ • INTRODUCTION • Interference effects from dual-tasking during memory retrieval are larger when there isoverlap in the materials used in the memory and distracting tasks. Word memory was interfered with more by word-based than digit-based tasks (Fernandes & Moscovitch, 2000). • Evidence suggests that processing type, not material type is the source of memory interference (Fernandes & Guild, 2009). • Chinese word processing is more visuo-spatial, while English word processing is more phonological (Tan et al., 2001). • DESIGN • Compared memory for words written in Chinese characters in monolingual English and Bilingual Chinese-English participants. RESULTS Chinese speakers showed significantly greater memory interference from the visuospatial than phonological distracting task, a pattern that was not present in the English group. Encoding Phase: Retrieval Phase: + + 500 ms 500 ms 1500 ms 500 ms Phonological Secondary Task Phonological Secondary Task Visuo-Spatial Secondary Task Visuo-Spatial Secondary Task < Chinese speakers were more susceptible to visuo-spatial than phonological interference. The English group displayed the opposite pattern. • RESEARCH QUESTION • Given that Chinese and English word processing differs and that memory interference results from overlap in processing, can language experience alter the pattern of memory interference during dual-tasking? 3500 ms • Compared current data set with another in which English-only speakers’ memory for English words under same conditions. > • CONCLUSIONS • Results suggest overlap in type of processing required by tasks mediates dual-task effects at memory retrieval. • Individual differences in word representations emerge based on differing language experience. • These differences may lead to a heavier reliance on either visuospatial or phonological processing, directly affecting patterns of memory interference under dual-task conditions. • HYPOTHESES • Chinese speakers’ memory for Chinese characters will be more susceptible to visuo-spatial interference than English speakers’. • While Chinese word memory will be more susceptible to visuo-spatial interference, English word memory will be more susceptible to phonological interference . estate • REFERENCES: • Fernandes, M., & Guild, E. (2009). Process-specific interference effects during recognition of spatial patterns and words. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 24-32. • Fernandes, M., & Moscovitch, M. (2000). Divided attention and memory: Evidence of substantial interference effects at retrieval and encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 155-176. • Tan, L., Liu, H., Perfetti, C., Spinks, J., Fox, P., & Gao, J. (2001). The neural system underlying Chinese logograph reading. NeuroImage, 13, 836-846.