Comparing memory for Chinese and English words ()

advertisement
Language Experience Shapes Cognition:
Comparing Memory for Chinese and English Words
Jeffrey D.
1
Wammes,
Myra A.
1
Fernandes,
Janet H.
2
Hsiao
1 University of Waterloo, 2 University of Hong Kong
•
•
Interference effects from dual-tasking during
memory retrieval are larger when there is
overlap in the materials used in the memory and
distracting tasks. Word memory was interfered
with more by word-based than digit-based tasks
(Fernandes & Moscovitch, 2000).
•
Compared memory for words written in Chinese
characters in monolingual English and Bilingual
Chinese-English participants.
Encoding Phase:
+
Evidence suggests that processing type, not
material type is the source of memory
interference (Fernandes & Guild, 2009).
Chinese speakers
showed
significantly
greater memory
interference from
the visuospatial
than phonological
distracting task, a
pattern that was
not present in the
English group.
Retrieval Phase:
500 ms
1500 ms
500 ms
+
500 ms
Chinese word processing is more visuo-spatial,
while English word processing is more
phonological (Tan et al., 2001).
Given that Chinese and English word processing
differs and that memory interference results
from overlap in processing, can language
experience alter the pattern of memory
interference during dual-tasking?
Chinese speakers’ memory for Chinese
characters will be more susceptible to visuospatial interference than English speakers’.
•
While Chinese word memory will be more
susceptible to visuo-spatial interference, English
word memory will be more susceptible to
phonological interference .
Full Attention
0.9
DA Phonological
0.8
DA Visuo-Spatial
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Chinese-English
Full Attention
0.9
3500
ms
•
‘R’
‘M’
‘M’
Compared current data set with another in
which English-only speakers’ memory for English
words under same conditions.
DA Phonological
0.8
DA Visuo-Spatial
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Chinese-English
English (Fernandes & Guild,
2009)
English-Only
Chinese speakers
were more
susceptible to
visuo-spatial
than
phonological
interference. The
English group
displayed the
opposite pattern.
CONCLUSIONS
HYPOTHESES
•
1
1
RESEARCH QUESTION
•
RESULTS
Accuracy (Hit Rate - False Alarm Rate)
•
DESIGN
Accuracy (Hit Rate- False Alarm Rate)
INTRODUCTION
‘R’
‘M’
estate
•
Results suggest overlap in type of processing
required by tasks mediates dual-task effects at
memory retrieval.
•
Individual differences in word representations
emerge based on differing language experience.
•
These differences may lead to a heavier reliance
on either visuospatial or phonological
processing, directly affecting patterns of memory
interference under dual-task conditions.
‘M’
REFERENCES:
• Fernandes, M., & Guild, E. (2009). Process-specific interference effects during recognition of
spatial patterns and words. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 24-32.
• Fernandes, M., & Moscovitch, M. (2000). Divided attention and memory: Evidence of
substantial interference effects at retrieval and encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 129, 155-176.
• Tan, L., Liu, H., Perfetti, C., Spinks, J., Fox, P., & Gao, J. (2001). The neural system underlying
Chinese logograph reading. NeuroImage, 13, 836-846.
Download
Related flashcards
Create Flashcards