Expecting Questions Modulates Cognitive Effort in a Syntactic Processing Task: Evidence From Pupillometry
Expecting Questions Modulates Cognitive Effort in a Syntactic Processing Task: Evidence From Pupillometry
复制标题
DOI：
10.1044/2020_jslhr-20-00071
复制
发表时间：
2021-01-01
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Hallowell, Brooke
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chapman, Laura Roche;Hallowell, Brooke
目的：通过瞳孔测量法(测量认知任务执行过程中的瞳孔扩张和收缩)捕捉到的瞳孔反应是认知努力、注意力、唤醒和资源投入的心理生理学指标。瞳孔测量法可能是一种很有前途的工具，可以增强我们对失语症患者和非失语症患者认知和语言之间关系的理解。对瞳孔反应的解释是复杂的。这项研究被设计为未来涉及失语症患者的瞳孔测量研究的垫脚石。在涉及失语症患者和非失语症患者的语言处理研究中，提出理解问题是很常见的。然而，理解问题对任务投入(紧张性反应)和认知努力(小学生的任务诱发反应[Terps])的影响尚不清楚。方法：40名非失语症成人分别在两种条件下听简单(规范)和困难(非规范)句子：一种是包含显性理解任务的条件(问题条件)，另一种是不包含显性理解任务的条件(无问题条件)。结果：正则性的影响仅在提问条件下显著：难句的正则性比简单句的正则性大。强直反应在不同条件下没有差异。结论：尽管参与者在两种条件下的注意力水平相似，但只有当参与者预期理解问题时，句法加工过程中的认知努力指数才会显著增加。研究结果提供了大量证据，表明在使用斜视计量学研究语言加工时，任务设计和仔细的语言刺激控制的重要性。
Purpose: Pupillary responses captured via pupillometry (measurement of pupillary dilation and constriction during the performance of a cognitive task) are psychophysiological indicators of cognitive effort, attention, arousal, and resource engagement. Pupillometry may be a promising tool for enhancing our understanding of the relationship between cognition and language in people with and without aphasia. Interpretation of pupillary responses is complex. This study was designed as a stepping-stone for future pupillometric studies involving people with aphasia. Asking comprehension questions is common in language processing research involving people with and without aphasia. However, the influence of comprehension questions on pupillometric indices of task engagement (tonic responses) and cognitive effort (task-evoked responses of the pupil [TERPs]) is unknown. We tested whether asking comprehension questions influenced pupillometric results of adults without aphasia during a syntactic processing task.Method: Forty adults without aphasia listened to easy (canonical) and difficult (noncanonical) sentences in two conditions: one that contained an explicit comprehension task (question condition) and one that did not (no-question condition). The influence of condition and canonicity on pupillary responses was examined.Results: The influence of canonicity was only significant in the question condition: TERPs for difficult sentences were larger than TERPs for easy sentences. Tonic responses did not differ between conditions.Conclusions: Although participants had similar levels of attentiveness in both conditions, increases in indices of cognitive effort during syntactic processing were significant only when participants expected comprehension questions. Results contribute to a body of evidence indicating the importance of task design and careful linguistic stimulus control when using pupillometry to study language processing.