Shared Structuring Resources across Domains: Double Task Effects from Linguistic Processing on the Structural Integration of Pitch Sequences

Abstract

1Many studies have reported evidence suggesting that resources involved in linguistic structural 2 processing might be domain-general by demonstrating interference from simultaneously presented non-3 linguistic stimuli on the processing of sentences (Slevc, Rosenberg, & Patel, 2009). However, the 4 complexity of the analyzed linguistic processes often precludes the interpretation of such interference as 5 being based on structural -rather than more general -processing resources (Perruchet & Poulin-6 Charronnat, 2013). We therefore used linguistic structure as a source of interference for another structural 7 processing task, by asking participants to read sentences while processing experimentally manipulated 8 pitch sequences. Half of the sentences contained a segment with either an "out-of-context" sentential 9 violation or a "garden path" unexpectancy. Furthermore, the pitch sequences contained a cluster shift 10 which did or did not align with the sentential unexpectancies. A two-tone recognition task followed each 11 pitch sequence, providing an index of the strength with which this structural boundary was processed. 12When a "garden path" unexpectancy (requiring structural reintegration) accompanied the cluster shift, the 13 structural boundary induced by this shift was processed more shallowly. No such effect occurred with 14 non-reintegratable "out-of-context" sentential violations. Furthermore, the discussed interference effect 15 can be isolated from general pitch recognition performance, supporting the interpretation of such 16 interference as being based on overlapping structural processing resources (Kljajevic, 2010; Patel, 2003).

Cross-Representational Interactions: Interface and Overlap Mechanisms

“…For example, the cerebellum has been implicated in mathematical cognition as well as in grammatical processes and music perception (Doya, 1999; Riva and Giorgi, 2000; Janata and Grafton, 2003; Wartenburger et al, 2003; Murdoch, 2010; Pliatsikas et al, 2014; Dehaene et al, 2015). We suggest that the brain network responsible for patterning, sequencing, and chunking can mediate cross-representational interaction effects for the concepts that rely heavily on hierarchical organization of linear sequences such as grammatical, arithmetic, and musical phrases (Scheepers et al, 2011; Van de Cavey and Hartsuiker, 2016; Van de Cavey et al, 2016). …”

Syntax and prediction in language and music

“…Both behavioural Fiveash et al, 2018;Fiveash & Pammer, 2014;Hoch et al, 2011;Slevc et al, 2009) and neurophysiological (Carrus et al, 2013;Koelsch, Gunter, et al, 2005;Steinbeis & Koelsch, 2008) studies have shown interference between syntactic integration processing for language and music, which typically was not shown with semantic errors in language or with timbral or loudness manipulations in music. Note that the syntax-specificity of these shared mechanisms is still debated, with links to other shared resources including syntactic working memory (Fiveash & Pammer, 2014;Kljajevic, 2010), structural reintegration (Van de Cavey et al, 2017), cognitive control (Slevc & Okada, 2014), and more recently, hierarchical control (Asano et al, 2015;. See also Perruchet and Poulin-Charronnat (2013) and discussion in Hoch et al (2011) for links with semantics and the importance of considering potential differences in the strength of the used syntactic/semantic violation.…”

Syntactic and non-syntactic sources of interference by music on language processing

“…To further investigate whether interference effects were specifically related to shared syntactic processing resources, Van de Cavey, Severens, and Hartsuiker (2017) 28 contrasted syntactic garden path sentences with syntactic anomalies while participants were concurrently listening to pitch sequences that contained “clusters” of related notes. Cluster shifts (moving from one group of related notes to another group of related notes) were introduced either concurrently or non-concurrently with the unexpected sentence element.…”