Effect of Perceptual Load on Semantic Access by Speech in Children

Abstract

Purpose To examine whether semantic access by speech requires attention in children. Method Children (N=200) named pictures and ignored distractors on a cross-modal (distractors: auditory-no face) or multi-modal (distractors: auditory-static face and audiovisual-dynamic face) picture word task. The cross-modal had a low load, and the multi-modal had a high load [i.e., respectively naming pictures displayed 1) on a blank screen vs 2) below the talker’s face on his T-shirt]. Semantic content of distractors was manipulated to be related vs unrelated to picture (e.g., picture dog with distractors bear vs cheese). Lavie's (2005) perceptual load model proposes that semantic access is independent of capacity limited attentional resources if irrelevant semantic-content manipulation influences naming times on both tasks despite variations in loads but dependent on attentional resources exhausted by higher load task if irrelevant content influences naming only on cross-modal (low load). Results Irrelevant semantic content affected performance for both tasks in 6- to 9-year-olds, but only on cross-modal in 4–5-year-olds. The addition of visual speech did not influence results on the multi-modal task. Conclusion Younger and older children differ in dependence on attentional resources for semantic access by speech.

Children use visual speech to compensate for non-intact auditory speech

“…These results disagree with predictions that younger children with less mature linguistic and processing skills will rely on visual speech to a greater extent than older children. The results do, however, support the prediction that word stimuli disproportionately drain processing resources in 4–5-yr-olds and reduce sensitivity to visual speech because lexical-semantic access requires more attentional resources in these younger children than in older children (Jerger et al, 2013). …”

“…To the extent that these results generalize to our task, we may see a greater visual speech fill-in effect for words than nonwords. An exception to this prediction is raised, however, by the finding that lexical-semantic access requires more attentional resources in 4–5-yr-olds than in older children (Jerger et al, 2013). This outcome predicts that the word stimuli may disproportionately drain the younger children’s processing resources and reduce sensitivity to visual speech for words.…”

Effect of Hearing Loss on Semantic Access by Auditory and Audiovisual Speech in Children

“…This pattern would indicate that lexical selection by competition was present in the HI group and not different from that in the NH group (e.g. Levelt et al 1999; Damian et al 2001; Damian & Bowers 2003; Jerger et al 2013). To the extent that the HI group shows the typical semantic interference effect, the lexical selection by competition hypothesis also predicts that semantic interference will occur at −165 ms SOA, with little or no semantic interference at +165 ms SOA.…”

“…The dependent measure is the speed of picture naming. Both adults and children require more time to name pictures presented with semantically-related (vs -unrelated) distractors, an effect called semantic interference (see Jerger et al, 2013, for review). This interference is commonly attributed to competition between the lexical-semantic representations of the picture and distractor for selection and control of the response, called the lexical selection by competition hypothesis (Levelt et al 1999; Damian et al 2001; Damian & Bowers 2003).…”

Desenvolvimento lexical, alterações fonoaudiológicas e desempenho escolar: revisão de literatura

“…It is worth noting that the assumption that the effects of the age may vary according to the interactions between the interference source, nature of the target, and the perceived task characteristics, i.e., the literature draws attention to the possible effects of the perceived task characteristics on the response and semantic access in children 23 . Language-ABFW, the lexical field (shapes and colors) showed differences between the results.…”