Processing of zero-derived words in English: an fMRI investigation

Derivational morphological processes allow us to create new words (e.g. punish (V) to noun (N) punishment) from base forms. The number of steps from the basic units to derived words often varies (e.g., nationalityform. It is therefore unclear whether the effects reported are attributable to underlying morphological complexity or to the processing of multiple surface morphemes. Here we report the first study to investigate morphological processing where derivational steps are not overtly marked (e.g., bridge-N>bridge-V) i.e., zero-derivation ( Aronoff, 1980). We compared the processing of one-step (soakingforms of words (soaking, bridging) in a lexical decision task. Although the surface derived -ing forms can be contextually participles, gerunds, or even nouns, they are all derived from verbs since the suffix -ing can only be attached to verb roots. Crucially, the verb root is the basic form for the one-step words, whereas for the two-step words the verb root is zero derived from a basic noun. Significantly increased brain activity was observed for complex (one-step and two-step) versus simple (zero-step) forms in regions involved in morphological processing, such as the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG). Critically, activation was also more pronounced for two-step compared to one-step forms. Since both types of derived words have the same surface structure, our findings suggest that morphological processing is based on underlying morphological complexity, independent of overt affixation. This study is the first to provide evidence for the processing of zero derivation, and demonstrates that morphological processing cannot be reduced to surface form-based segmentation.

Is children's reading “good enough”? Links between online processing and comprehension as children read syntactically ambiguous sentences

We monitored 8- and 10-year-old children’s eye movements as they read sentences containing a temporary syntactic ambiguity to obtain a detailed record of their online processing. Children showed the classic garden-path effect in online processing. Their reading was disrupted following disambiguation, relative to control sentences containing a comma to block the ambiguity, although the disruption occurred somewhat later than would be expected for mature readers. We also asked children questions to probe their comprehension of the syntactic ambiguity offline. They made more errors following ambiguous sentences than following control sentences, demonstrating that the initial incorrect parse of the garden-path sentence influenced offline comprehension. These findings are consistent with “good enough” processing effects seen in adults. While faster reading times and more regressions were generally associated with better comprehension, spending longer reading the question predicted comprehension success specifically in the ambiguous condition. This suggests that reading the question prompted children to reconstruct the sentence and engage in some form of processing, which in turn increased the likelihood of comprehension success. Older children were more sensitive to the syntactic function of commas, and, overall, they were faster and more accurate than younger children.

Children’s and adults’ processing of syntactically ambiguous sentences during reading

While there has been a fair amount of research investigating children’s syntactic processing during spoken language comprehension, and a wealth of research examining adults’ syntactic processing during reading, as yet very little research has focused on syntactic processing during text reading in children. In two experiments, children and adults read sentences containing a temporary syntactic ambiguity while their eye movements were monitored. In Experiment 1, participants read sentences such as, ‘The boy poked the elephant with the long stick/trunk from outside the cage’ in which the attachment of a prepositional phrase was manipulated. In Experiment 2, participants read sentences such as, ‘I think I’ll wear the new skirt I bought tomorrow/yesterday. It’s really nice’ in which the attachment of an adverbial phrase was manipulated. Results showed that adults and children exhibited similar processing preferences, but that children were delayed relative to adults in their detection of initial syntactic misanalysis. It is concluded that children and adults have the same sentence-parsing mechanism in place, but that it operates with a slightly different time course. In addition, the data support the hypothesis that the visual processing system develops at a different rate than the linguistic processing system in children.

Are visual threats prioritized without awareness? A critical review and meta analysis involving 3 behavioral paradigms and 2696 observers

Given capacity limits, only a subset of stimuli 1 give rise to a conscious percept. Neurocognitive models suggest that humans have evolved mechanisms that operate without awareness and prioritize threatening stimuli over neutral stimuli in subsequent perception. In this meta analysis, we review evidence for this ‘standard hypothesis’ emanating from three widely used, but rather different experimental paradigms that have been used to manipulate awareness. We found a small pooled threat-bias effect in the masked visual probe paradigm, a medium effect in the binocular rivalry paradigm and highly inconsistent effects in the breaking continuous flash suppression paradigm. Substantial heterogeneity was explained by the stimulus type: the only threat stimuli that were robustly prioritized across all three paradigms were fearful faces. Meta regression revealed that anxiety may modulate threat biases, but only under specific presentation conditions. We also found that insufficiently rigorous awareness measures, inadequate control of response biases and low level confounds may undermine claims of genuine unconscious threat processing. Considering the data together, we suggest that uncritical acceptance of the standard hypothesis is premature: current behavioral evidence for threat-sensitive visual processing that operates without awareness is weak.