Hemispheric contributions to lexical ambiguity resolution: Evidence from individuals with complex language impairment following left-hemisphere lesions

Nine individuals with complex language deficits following left-hemisphere cortical lesions and a matched control group (n 5 9) performed speeded lexical decisions on the third word of auditory word triplets containing a lexical ambiguity. The critical conditions were concordant (e.g., coin–bank–money), discordant (e.g., river–bank–money), neutral (e.g., day–bank– money), and unrelated (e.g., river–day–money). Triplets were presented with an interstimulus interval (ISI) of 100 and 1250 ms. Overall, the left-hemisphere-damaged subjects appeared able to exhaustively access meanings for lexical ambiguities rapidly, but were unable to reduce the level of activation for contextually inappropriate meanings at both short and long ISIs, unlike control subjects. These findings are consistent with a disruption of the proposed role of the left hemisphere in selecting and suppressing meanings via contextual integration and a sparing of the right-hemisphere mechanisms responsible for maintaining alternative meanings.

Parameter setting and statistical learning

Three main models of parameter setting have been proposed: the Variational model proposed by Yang (2002; 2004), the Structured Acquisition model endorsed by Baker (2001; 2005), and the Very Early Parameter Setting (VEPS) model advanced by Wexler (1998). The VEPS model contends that parameters are set early. The Variational model supposes that children employ statistical learning mechanisms to decide among competing parameter values, so this model anticipates delays in parameter setting when critical input is sparse, and gradual setting of parameters. On the Structured Acquisition model, delays occur because parameters form a hierarchy, with higher-level parameters set before lower-level parameters. Assuming that children freely choose the initial value, children sometimes will miss-set parameters. However when that happens, the input is expected to trigger a precipitous rise in one parameter value and a corresponding decline in the other value. We will point to the kind of child language data that is needed in order to adjudicate among these competing models.

Mummy! Ball! Fish!: Why English-learning children produce nouns earlier than verbs

When English-learning children begin using words the majority of their early utterances (around 80%) are nouns. Compared to nouns, there is a paucity of verbs or non-verb relational words, such as 'up' meaning 'pick me up'. The primary explanations to account for these differences in use either argue in support of a 'cognitive account', which claims that verbs entail more cognitive complexity than nouns, or they provide evidence challenging this account. In this paper I propose an additional explanation for children's noun/verb asymmetry. Presenting a 'multi-modal account' of word-learning based on children's gesture and word combinations, I show that at the one-word stage English-learning children use gestures to express verb-like elements which leaves their words free to express noun-like elements.

A randomized trial of a problem-based learning approach for teaching epidemiology

Purpose. To conduct a controlled trial of traditional and problem-based learning (PBL) methods of teaching epidemiology. Method. All second-year medical students (n = 136) at The University of Western Australia Medical School were offered the chance to participate in a randomized controlled trial of teaching methods fur an epidemiology course. Students who consented to participate (n = 80) were randomly assigned to either a PBL or a traditional course. Students who did not consent or did not return the consent form (n = 56) were assigned to the traditional course, Students in both streams took identical quizzes and exams. These scores, a collection of semi-quantitative feedback from all students, and a qualitative analysis of interviews with a convenience sample of six students from each stream were compared. Results. There was no significant difference in performances on quizzes or exams between PBL and traditional students. Students using PBL reported a stronger grasp of epidemiologic principles, enjoyed working with a group, and, at the end of the course, were more enthusiastic about epidemiology and its professional relevance to them than were students in the traditional course. PBL students worked more steadily during the semester but spent only marginally more time on the epidemiology course overall. Interviews corroborated these findings. Non-consenting students were older (p < 0.02) and more likely to come from non-English-speaking backgrounds (p < 0.005). Conclusions. PBL provides an academically equivalent but personally far richer learning experience. The adoption of PBL approaches to medical education makes it important to study whether PBL presents particular challenges for students whose first language is not the language of instruction.

Is affective learning really resistant to extinction? Stimulus ratings and affective priming give different answers

Affective learning, the learning of likes and dislikes, is proposed to differ from signal learning, the learning of relationships between events. However, affective learning research varies in the methodology used, and in addition, researchers concerned primarily with affective learning tend to use different paradigms from those concerned with signal learning. The current research used an affective priming task in addition to verbal ratings to assess changes in the valence of neutral geometric shapes in an aversive differential conditioning procedure. After acquisition, affective learning was present as indexed by ratings and affective priming, whereas after extinction, affective learning remained significant only in the ratings. This study suggests that different measures of affective learning may be differentially sensitive to valence, which has implications for studies that employ verbal ratings as the sole measure of affective learning. Moreover, there is no evidence from the current study that affective learning differs from signal learning.