Task Difficulty Differentially Affects Two Measures of Processing Load: The Pupil Response During Sentence Processing and Delayed Cued Recall of the Sentences.

Purpose: In this study, the authors assessed the influence of masking level (29% or 71% sentence perception) and test modality on the processing load during language perception as reflected by the pupil response. In addition, the authors administered a delayed cued stimulus recall test to examine wh...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research Vol. 56; no. 4; pp. 1156 - 1166
Autores principales: Zekveld, Adriana A., Festen, Joost M., Kramer, Sophia E., Champlin, Craig, Edwards, Brent
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Aug2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=89649304&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 89649304
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        10924388
        1SM
      jtl: Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research
      issn: 10924388
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Aug2013
      vid: 56
      iid: 4
      pid: 42
      pub: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
    artinfo:
      ui:
        89649304
        10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0058)
      ppf: 1156
      ppct: 10
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 217KB
      tig:
        atl: Task Difficulty Differentially Affects Two Measures of Processing Load: The Pupil Response During Sentence Processing and Delayed Cued Recall of the Sentences.
      aug:
        au:
          Zekveld, Adriana A.
          Festen, Joost M.
          Kramer, Sophia E.
          Champlin, Craig
          Edwards, Brent
        affil:
          EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands
          Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
      su:
        Netherlands
        Analysis of variance
        Memory
        Physiology
        Pupil (Eye)
        Audiometry
        Experimental design
        Research funding
        Speech perception
        Statistics
        T-test (Statistics)
        Vision testing
        Visual acuity
        Data analysis
        Phonological awareness
        Prompts (Psychology)
        Descriptive statistics
      sug:
        subj:
          Analysis of variance
          Memory
          Physiology
          Netherlands
          Pupil (Eye)
          Audiometry
          Experimental design
          Research funding
          Speech perception
          Statistics
          T-test (Statistics)
          Vision testing
          Visual acuity
          Data analysis
          Phonological awareness
          Prompts (Psychology)
          Descriptive statistics
      keyword:
        processing load
        pupil response
        speech recall
        speech recognition
        text reception threshold (TRT)
        processing load
        pupil response
        speech recall
        speech recognition
        text reception threshold (TRT)
      ab: Purpose: In this study, the authors assessed the influence of masking level (29% or 71% sentence perception) and test modality on the processing load during language perception as reflected by the pupil response. In addition, the authors administered a delayed cued stimulus recall test to examine whether processing load affected the encoding of the stimuli in memory. Method: Participants performed speech and text reception threshold tests, during which the pupil response was measured. In the cued recall test, the first half of correctly perceived sentences was presented, and participants were asked to complete the sentences. Reading and listening span tests of working memory capacity were presented as well. Results: Regardless of test modality, the pupil response indicated higher processing load in the 29% condition than in the 71% correct condition. Cued recall was better for the 29% condition. Conclusions: The consistent effect of masking level on the pupil response during listening and reading support the validity of the pupil response as a measure of processing load during language perception. The absent relation between pupil response and cued recall may suggest that cued recall is not directly related to processing load, as reflected by the pupil response.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N