Resolution of lexical retrieval failures. Reaction time data in the tip-of-the-tongue paradigm

Full text

Resolution of lexical retrieval failures.
Reaction time data in the tip-of-the-tongue paradigm
Nina Jeanette Hofferberth
Department of Linguistics, Goethe-University Frankfurt
Abstract
The tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon refers to the experience of having a word on the tip of one’s
tongue: There is access to the word’s lemma but only partial access to the word’s lexeme. A common
paradigm is to create definitions or questions to induce TOTs and measure the probability of
unsuccessful retrieval. Whereas reaction time (RT) data has frequently been used to measure
successful retrieval in tasks like picture naming, the present study reports a novel use for RTs in the
area of ‘impaired' lexical access. RT data allows for a more objective measure of TOTs, as opposed
to participants’ self-report.
The statistical analysis was done with repeated measures ANOVAS in order to differentiate between
conditions. Significant effects were subsequently explored using paired t-tests.
TOT rate
• 20.2% (M = 48 TOTs; SD = 22 TOTs)
• 52.3% were resolved in the given time of 25 seconds, with RTs between 1,688 ms and 22,252 ms
(M = 6,725 ms; SD = 3,654 ms)
• 37.1% were accurate TOT resolutions (answer was consistent with target)
• 15.2% were inaccurate TOT resolutions (answer differed from target)
• 47.7% TOTs stayed unresolved in the allowed time of 25 seconds
Reaction times after definition Reaction times to resolve TOTs
Results
Aim and scope
After two pilot studies (Hofferberth, 2012), in order to collect definitions and to increase TOTs (by
reducing DON’T KNOW answers), a reaction-time experiment was performed to test three
hypotheses:
1a. Participants will be faster to report KNOW than DON’T KNOW or TOT,
1b. RTs for TOT responses will be slower than DON’T KNOW responses.
2a. The correct first syllable will facilitate lexical retrieval by speeding up TOT resolution,
2b. and will lead to more accurate TOT resolutions (compared to the control).
3a. An incorrect syllable will inhibit lexical retrieval by slowing down TOT resolution,
3b. and will lead to more inaccurate TOT resolutions (compared to the control),
Design
The study had a within-subject design. For the analysis involving a cue, the independent variable
was the cue condition (correct syllable, incorrect syllable, control). The dependent variables were
the RTs to press KNOW after cue presentation and type in the answer (to indicate TOT resolution)
as well as the percentage of time a TOT was resolved.
Participants
60 under- and postgraduates (from Heinrich-Heine University Dusseldorf, Bergische University
Wuppertal, and Goethe-University Frankfurt) participated in this study; 48 students (30 female, 18
male) between 21 and 35 years (M = 29.5; SD = 3.7) were considered for data analysis. They were
native speakers of German and got paid for their participation.
Apparatus and material
The definitions were presented on a computer screen using the program Presentation. 240
definitions of German nouns were presented in order to induce TOTs. The frequencies of the stimuli
and of their first syllables were taken from the DLEX database and were used to ensure that the
correct and the incorrect syllables were matched in frequency.
Procedure
Participants read definitions on a computer screen and were asked to push a button as fast as
possible to indicate if they KNOW the word, DON’T KNOW it or, if they experience a TOT.
• KNOW: participant typed in the answer, next definition appeared on the screen
• DON’T KNOW: next definition appeared
• TOT: one of three written cues was presented for 25 seconds:
• correct first syllable of the target or
• incorrect syllable (of another target) with matched frequency or
• control condition (xxx)
Example
Definition: “A cigar-shaped, self-propelled underwater projectile launched from a ship, submarine
or aircraft, and designed to explode on reaching a target”
Target word: torpedo
• Correct first syllable: tor
• Incorrect syllable: gen
• Control condition: xxx
Hypothesis testing
1a. Participants will be faster to report KNOW than DON’T KNOW or TOT, !
1b. RTs for TOT responses will be slower than DON’T KNOW responses. !
2a. The correct first syllable will facilitate lexical retrieval by speeding up TOT resolution, !
2b. and will lead to more accurate TOT resolutions (compared to the control). !
3a. An incorrect syllable will inhibit lexical retrieval by slowing down TOT resolution, "
3b. and will lead to more inaccurate TOT resolutions (compared to the control), "
It can be concluded that the search in the mental lexicon for a word that is retrievable (KNOW) is
fast and easy. In contrast, it takes longer to go through a mental word list with possible words but
without the target word (DON’T KNOW), and even longer to search for a word that exists in
memory but is only partially activated (TOT). RTs were useful indicators of dissociating TOT and
DON’T KNOW responses. RT data are new in the area of TOT research and allow for a more
objective measurement of TOTs instead of relying entirely on participants' judgments.
RTs were useful to capture the facilitatory effect from a correct syllable (more accurate TOT
resolutions). RTs did not detect an inhibitory effect from an incorrect syllable with inaccurate TOT
resolutions: an incorrect syllable did not increase retrievals of some other word starting with that
syllable. But an incorrect syllable did demonstrate a unique inhibitory effect on TOT resolution
by decreasing accurate retrievals and increasing unresolved TOTs, suggesting that an incorrect
syllable may play some role in hampering the resolution process.
The present results extend the facilitating effect of the correct syllable seen with cue words sharing
the first syllable of the target to syllable cues presented in isolation.
# Results support the Transmission Deficit Hypotheses (TDH): TOTs occur when activation fails
to be fully transmitted from the lemma to the lexeme node. Cueing helps to overcome the
transmission deficit: Presenting the first syllable helps to fill the first ‘slot’ of the word, and to
reduce the number of competitors by strengthening the weakened phonological connections that
caused the TOT, facilitating target retrieval.
• Abrams, L., White, K. K., & Eitel, S. L. (2003). Isolating phonological components that increase tip-of-the-tongue resolution.
Memory & Cognition, 31, 1153-1162.
• Hofferberth, N. J. (2012). On the role of the syllable in tip-of-the-tongue states. In Proceedings of the International Conference of
Experimental Linguistics. ExLing 27-29 August 2012 (pp. 57-60). Athens: ISCA and the University of Athens.
• Hofferberth-Sauer, N. J., & Abrams, L. (in press). Resolving tip-of-the-tongue states with syllable cues. In V. Torrens and L.
Escobar (Eds.), The processing of lexicon and morphosyntax. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
• MacKay, D. G. (1987). The organization of perception and action: A theory for language and other cognitive skills. New York:
Springer.
• White, K. K., & Abrams, L. (2002). Does priming specific syllables during tip-of-the-tongue states facilitate word retrieval in
older adults? Psychology and Aging, 17, 226-235.
Discussion
Introduction
The tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) phenomenon is a common and universal experience caused by the
incapability of retrieving a familiar word or name. Speakers have a strong feeling of knowing the
word, have access to semantic (concept) and syntactic information (lemma), but the access to the
word form (lexeme) is impaired. The ease and speed with which information comes to mind
(retrieval fluency) is hampered in a TOT state. Speakers are often able to retrieve partial
information, such as the first phoneme or grapheme, the number of syllables, the stress pattern as
well as words with similar sound and/or similar meaning.
Different approaches explain the etiology of TOT states:
a. Blocking hypothesis: intrusions of words with similar sound (interlopers) hinder the access to
the correct target.
b. Incomplete activation hypothesis: the intended word is only weakly activated.
# This lack of activation can be explained with a transmission deficit (TD): the level of
activation from the lemma to the lexeme node is not high enough to support word production
(MacKay, 1987).
In previous work, correct cues were used to boost activation to the target word: White and Abrams
(2002) demonstrated that it is the first syllable of the target, which leads to significantly more TOT
resolutions, compared to the middle and last syllable. Abrams, White, and Eitel (2003) showed that
TOT resolution requires the entire first syllable and not only the first grapheme or first phoneme.
Here, the first syllable was presented individually to avoid providing any semantic information, and
to prevent interlopers. For a comparison of TOT designs, see Hofferberth-Sauer and Abrams (in
press).
Incorrect cues have not been used so far. TOT resolution might get hampered with incorrect
syllables because people’s search for the target begins with misinformation, activating an incorrect
syllable, which will transmit activation to other words containing that syllable and not to the target.
Reaction times (RTs) have been used in the area of lexical access for decades in tasks such as
picture naming or lexical decision where words are named successfully, but RT data are not
typically reported when lexical access fails.
10th International Seminar on Speech Production $ 05 - 08 May 2014 $ Cologne, Germany
• This Ph.D. project is funded by the Hanns-Seidel-Foundation (Munich).
• I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. Helen Leuninger (Goethe-University Frankfurt) for mentoring and support, and
Prof. Dr. Lise Abrams (University of Florida) for helpful comments.
• Thanks to Frauke Hellwig (Heinrich-Heine-University Dusseldorf) for programming with Presentation, and to Matthias Hoenen
(Heinrich-Heine-University Dusseldorf) for assistance with statistical analysis.
Acknowledgements
M SD
KNOW 5,265 ms 1,085 ms
DON’T KNOW 5,923 ms 1,311 ms
TOT 6,474 ms 1,122 ms
M SD
Correct syllable 4,055 ms 1,689 ms
Incorrect syllable 7,807 ms 3,984 ms
Control (xxx) 7,559 ms 2,582 ms
Cue analysis
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Accurate Inaccurate Unresolved
TOTs in %
Correct syllable
Incorrect syllable
Control (xxx)
***
***
*** ***
*** *
***
***
***
References
Experimental methodology