The production and comprehension lexicons: What's shared and what's not.

Here are the overheads from this talk.

page1
 page1
page2
 Production and Comprehension are closely intertwined
  • shared goal: to communicate ideas

  • without one, the other is useless

  • but, may operate with different processes and representations

page 3
 The Traditional model: Production & Comprehension are different

  • Production and Comprehension must solve different problems

    • - Production: maps a message onto an articulatory plan

    • - Comprehension: interpret an ambiguous input and reconstruct intended message

  • Evidence from Language Pathologies

    • - Broca's aphasia: impaired language production
    • - Wernicke's aphasia: impaired language comprehension
    		•
    page4

    Production and Comprehension are similar

    "... the processes of comprehension and production of speech have too much in common to depend on wholly different mechanisms" (Lashley, 1951, pg. 513)

    • Same units of processing

    • phonemes, words, phrases, clauses

    • Language Pathology, a closer look - the dissociation may not be as clear as once
      thought

    page5
    		 The focus of the my experiments:

    What kinds of lexical representations are shared by production and comprehension?

    More specifically:

    • are word-forms shared?

    • are meaning representations shared?

    page6
    		 The problem with the usual tasks:

    • confound production and comprehension

      - or -

    • focus on only production or comprehension

    Need a task that separates these two processes

    page7
    		 My Task:

    page7

    page8
    		 page8
    page9
    		 page9
    page10
    		 page10
    page11
    		 Experiment 1

    Does the task work? Do speakers "comprehend" the ignored word?

    Conditions:

    • Related (identical) vs. Unrelated
      "lion" vs. "bucket"

    • Produced prime (red) vs. Ignored prime (blue)

    Prediction: If ignored words are processed, then both produced and ignored primes should result in repetition priming (faster probe picture naming)

    page12
    		 Experiment 1 results
    page12
    page13

    Experiment 1 Conclusions

    • Ignored primes were processed

    • Something is shared by comprehension and production

      • but, can't tell what

    page14

    Experiments 2 & 3

    Are meaning representations shared?

    • same design used in Experiment 1, except used taxonomicallay related primes

      "tiger" prime for the lion picture

    • Experiment 2 used VISUAL primes

    • Experiment 3 used AUDITORY primes

    page15
    		 Predictions for Experiments 2 & 3
    page15
    page16
    		 Results for Experiments 2 & 3
    page16
    page17
    		 Experiments 2 and 3 Conclusions

    Both produced and ignored taxonomically related primes slowed probe picture naming

    This supports a model in which meaning representations are shared by production and comprehension
    page18
    		 Experiments 4 & 5

    Are word-forms shared?

    • same design used in earlier Expts, except used phonological primes

      "liar" prime for the lion picture

    • Experiment 4 used VISUAL primes

    • Experiment 5 used AUDITORY primes

    page19
    		 Predictions for Experiments 4 & 5
    page19
    page20
    		 Results for Experiments 4 & 5
    page20
    page21

    Conclusions of Experiments 4 and 5

    Produced phonological primes resulted in slower probe picture naming.

    Ignored phonological primes did not influence probe picture naming.

    These results support a model in which production and comprehension have separate word-forms
    page22
    		 page22
    page23
    		 page23

  • Coop's home page
  • Back to Cooper's Pulications Page
  • Return to Psychology Faculty, ISU.
  • Return to Experimental Program, ISU.
  • Return to Department of Psychology, ISU.

  • cutting@main.psy.ilstu.edu

    • Last Modified: 31 July 1998