liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Task Difficulty Differentially Affects Two Measures of Processing Load: The Pupil Response During Sentence Processing and Delayed Cued Recall of the Sentences
Linköping University, The Swedish Institute for Disability Research. Linköping University, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Vrije University of Amsterdam, Netherlands .
Vrije University of Amsterdam, Netherlands .
Vrije University of Amsterdam, Netherlands .
2013 (English)In: Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, ISSN 1092-4388, E-ISSN 1558-9102, Vol. 56, no 4, 1156-1165 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanMethod: 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. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanResults: 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. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanConclusions: 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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association , 2013. Vol. 56, no 4, 1156-1165 p.
Keyword [en]
speech recognition, speech recall, pupil response, processing load, text reception threshold (TRT)
National Category
Social Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-102989DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0058)ISI: 000328266600009OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-102989DiVA: diva2:685419
Note

Funding Agencies|Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research|Veni 451-10-031|

Available from: 2014-01-09 Created: 2014-01-09 Last updated: 2017-12-06

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Zekveld, Adriana A

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Zekveld, Adriana A
By organisation
The Swedish Institute for Disability ResearchDepartment of Behavioural Sciences and LearningFaculty of Arts and Sciences
In the same journal
Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research
Social Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 88 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf