Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T09:34:30.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pupil dilation is sensitive to the cognate status of words: further evidence for non-selectivity in bilingual lexical access*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

MARC GUASCH ,
PILAR FERRÉ  and
JUAN HARO
MARC GUASCH*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology and Research Center for Behavior Assessment (CRAMC) Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Tarragona. Spain
PILAR FERRÉ
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology and Research Center for Behavior Assessment (CRAMC) Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Tarragona. Spain
JUAN HARO
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology and Research Center for Behavior Assessment (CRAMC) Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Tarragona. Spain
*
Address for correspondence: Marc Guasch, Departament de Psicologia and CRAMC, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Carretera de Valls s/n, 43007, Tarragona, (Spain) [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The cognate facilitation effect (i.e., a processing advantage for cognates compared to non-cognates) is an evidence of language non-selectivity in bilingual lexical access. Several studies using behavioral or electrophysiological measures have demonstrated that this effect is modulated by the degree of formal overlap between translations. However, it has never been tested with a psychophysiological measure such as pupillometry. In the present study we replicate the cognate facilitation effect by examining reaction times and pupil responses. Our results endorse pupillometry as a promising tool for bilingual research, and confirm the modulation of the cognate effect by the degree of formal similarity.

Keywords

Cognate facilitation effectpupillometrylexical decision taskformal similaritylanguage non-selectivity
Type
Research Notes
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 49 - 54
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (PSI2012-37623, PCIN-2015-165-C02-02) and by the Rovira i Virgili University (2014PFR-URV-B2-37).

References

Alonso, M. A., Fernandez, A., & Díez, E. (2014). Subjective age-of-acquisition norms for 7,039 Spanish words. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 268–274. doi:10.3758/s13428-014-0454-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briesemeister, B. B., Hofmann, M. J., Tamm, S., Kuchinke, L., Braun, M., & Jacobs, A. M. (2009). The pseudohomophone effect: Evidence for an orthography-phonology-conflict. Neuroscience Letters, 455, 124–128. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2009.03.010 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Comesaña, M., Ferré, P., Romero, J., Guasch, M., Soares, A. P., & García-Chico, T. (2015). Facilitative effect of cognate words vanishes when reducing the orthographic overlap: The role of stimuli list composition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 614–635. doi:10.1037/xlm0000065 Google ScholarPubMed
Comesaña, M., Sánchez-Casas, R., Soares, A. P., Pinheiro, A. P., Rauber, A., Frade, S., & Fraga, I. (2012). The interplay of phonology and orthography in visual cognate word recognition: An ERP study. Neuroscience Letters, 529, 75–79. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2012.09.010 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dijkstra, T., Miwa, K., Brummelhuis, B., Sappelli, M., & Baayen, H. (2010). How cross-language similarity and task demands affect cognate recognition. Journal of Memory and language, 62, 284–301. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175–197. doi:10.1017/S1366728902003012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duchon, A., Perea, M., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Martí, A., & Carreiras, M. (2013). EsPal: One-stop shopping for Spanish word properties. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1246–1258. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0326-1 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duñabeitia, J. A., & Costa, A. (2015). Lying in a native and foreign language. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1124–1129. doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0781-4 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duyck, W., Assche, E. V., Drieghe, D., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2007). Visual word recognition by bilinguals in a sentence context: evidence for nonselective lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 663–679. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.663 Google Scholar
Guasch, M., Boada, R., Ferré, P., & Sánchez-Casas, R. (2013). NIM: A Web-based Swiss army knife to select stimuli for psycholinguistic studies. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 765–771. doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0296-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guasch, M., Ferré, P., & Fraga, I. (in press). Spanish norms for Affective and Lexico-Semantic variables for 1,400 words. Behavior research methods. doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0684-y Google Scholar
Guasch, M., Haro, J., Ferré, P., & Vallès, B. (2015, July). Changes in pupil size as a measure of word recognition: Revisiting some classical effects in Psycholinguistics. Paper presented at the XII International Symposium of Psycholinguistics, Valencia, Spain.Google Scholar
Hyönä, J., Tommola, J., & Alaja, A. M. (1995). Pupil dilation as a measure of processing load in simultaneous interpretation and other language tasks. Quarterly journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 598–612. doi:10.1080/14640749508401407 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1993). The intensity dimension of thought: pupillometric indices of sentence processing. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 310–339. doi:10.1037/h0078820 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Wuggy: a multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 627–633. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.3.627 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuchinke, L., Võ, M. L. H., Hofmann, M., & Jacobs, A. M. (2007). Pupillary responses during lexical decisions vary with word frequency but not emotional valence. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 65, 132–140. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2007.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levenshtein, V. I. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10, 707–710.Google Scholar
Mulder, K., Dijkstra, T., & Baayen, R. H. (2015). Cross-language activation of morphological relatives in cognates: The role of orthographic overlap and task-related processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 1–18. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00016 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papesh, M. H., & Goldinger, S. D. (2012). Pupil-BLAH-metry: Cognitive effort in speech planning reflected by pupil dilation. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 754–765. doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0263-y CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schepens, J., Dijkstra, T., & Grootjen, F. (2012). Distributions of cognates in Europe as based on Levenshtein distance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 157–166. doi:10.1017/S1366728910000623 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidtke, J. (2014). Second language experience modulates word retrieval effort in bilinguals: Evidence from pupillometry. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00137 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Starreveld, P. A., de Groot, A. M. B., Rossmark, B. M. M., & van Hell, J. G. (2014). Parallel language activation during word processing in bilinguals: Evidence from word production in sentence context. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 258–276. doi:10.1017/S1366728913000308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Heuven, W. J. B., & Dijkstra, T. (2010). Language comprehension in the bilingual brain: fMRI and ERP support for psycholinguistic models. Brain Research Reviews, 64, 104–122. doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2010.03.002 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Orden, G. C. (1987). A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling, sound, and reading. Memory and Cognition, 15, 181–198. doi:10.3758/BF03197716 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Rijn, H., Dalenberg, J. R., Borst, J. P., & Sprenger, S. A. (2012). Pupil dilation co-varies with memory strength of individual traces in a delayed response paired-associate task. PLoS ONE, 7, 1–8. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, R. M. (1970). A linguistic analysis of first-grade reading errors. Reading Research Quarterly, 5, 427–451. doi:10.2307/747079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Guasch supplementary material

Appendix S1

Download Guasch supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 80.2 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Guasch supplementary material

Appendix S2

Download Guasch supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 69.5 KB