Hemispheric asymmetries in the resolution of lexical ambiguity jeffrey coney kimberly david evans
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 16

Hemispheric asymmetries in the resolution of lexical ambiguity Jeffrey Coney, Kimberly David Evans PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 42 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Hemispheric asymmetries in the resolution of lexical ambiguity Jeffrey Coney, Kimberly David Evans. Presented by Chris Evans May 17, 2006. Bottom Line.

Download Presentation

Hemispheric asymmetries in the resolution of lexical ambiguity Jeffrey Coney, Kimberly David Evans

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Hemispheric asymmetries in the resolution of lexical ambiguity jeffrey coney kimberly david evans

Hemispheric asymmetries in the resolution of lexical ambiguityJeffrey Coney, Kimberly David Evans

Presented by

Chris Evans

May 17, 2006


Bottom line

Bottom Line

Q: Taking dominant meanings, context, and delay between prime and target into account, does the brain activate the dominant meaning first and then activate others as needed, or activate ALL meanings initially and then use the appropriate one, losing the others?

A: Yes.


The brain

The Brain

Left brain:

  • linear, logic, detail, pieces

  • math, science, concrete meanings

    Right brain:

  • creative, pattern, “big picture”, relationships

  • art, music, connotations, pattern recognition

  • arousal and attention -- ?


Hemispheric asymmetries in the resolution of lexical ambiguity jeffrey coney kimberly david evans

The Brain and VisionSubject focuses on point in center of visual field,eliminating the overlap which normally occurs.


Hemispheric asymmetries in the resolution of lexical ambiguity jeffrey coney kimberly david evans

Task

To identify as a word or non-word a target letter string presented to either the lvf or rvf, after being “primed” by a sentence ending in the prime homograph

Target could be related to the dominant or subordinate meaning of the prime, or be unrelated, or be a pronounceable non-word letter string

Delay between prime and target varied


Controlled variables

Controlled Variables

  • Dominant or subordinate priming

  • Dominant or subordinate trigger word

  • Left or right presentation of trigger word

  • Delay in presenting trigger


Result measures

Result measures

Response times

Errors


Complex interactions

Complex interactions!

  • Dominant or subordinate priming

  • Agreement of target with prime

  • Delay between prime and target

  • LVF/RVF presentation of target


Method

Method

Looked good to me…

  • Choice of subjects (e.g. all right handed)

  • Use of both hands for responses

  • Choice of dominant/subordinate meanings (by experimentation)

  • Careful definition of user experience, and monitoring of user attention

  • T-tests to separate different effects


Rt results level 1

RT Results – Level 1

  • Longer SOA resulted in faster correct responses

  • Left hemisphere (RVF) provided faster correct responses

  • Congruence of prime and target meaning resulted in fastest response times; un-related prime and target had slowest response times


Rt results level 2

RT Results—Level 2

  • Congruent targets improved most at longer SOA

  • Responses were faster with a dominant target, for either context

  • Left hemisphere was significantly faster with dominant contexts at lower SOA, less so with subordinate contexts and longer SOA


Rt results level 3

RT Results—Level 3

  • In-context targets improved more at longer SOA than out-of-context targets

  • Confirmed advantage of dominant target

  • At longer SOA, facilitation decreased for dominant targets, increased for non-dominant targets


Rt results level 4

RT Results—Level 4

  • RVF and dominant context: only dominant targets were facilitated

  • LVF and dominant context: facilitation on all conditions EXCEPT incongruent non-dominant target at longer SOA

  • RVF and subordinate context: facilitation only at longer SOA

  • LVF and subordinate context: facilitation of congruent targets and non-congruent targets at longer SOA


Error results

Error Results

  • Confirmed RT results

  • No other significant results


Their conclusions

Their conclusions

  • Based on low SOA: left hemisphere is strongly sensitive to frequency and also to context; right hemisphere accesses all meanings and gives preference to the dominant only in dominant contexts

  • Based on higher SOA: no differences between LVF/RVF; dominant context resulted in no facilitation of non-dominants; non-dominant context strongly activated non-dominant meaning


Questions

Questions?


  • Login