The EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013 Aug;56(4):1156-65. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0058). Epub 2013 Jun 19.
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.
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.
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.
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.
在这项研究中,作者评估了掩蔽水平(29%或 71%的句子感知)和测试方式对语言感知过程中处理负荷的影响,这种影响反映在瞳孔反应上。此外,作者还进行了延迟提示刺激回忆测试,以检验处理负荷是否会影响刺激在记忆中的编码。
参与者进行了语音和文本接收阈值测试,在此过程中测量了瞳孔反应。在提示回忆测试中,呈现正确感知句子的前半部分,要求参与者完成句子。还呈现了阅读和听力广度测试,以评估工作记忆容量。
无论测试方式如何,瞳孔反应都表明在 29%的正确条件下比在 71%的正确条件下处理负荷更高。在 29%的条件下,提示回忆效果更好。
掩蔽水平对听力和阅读过程中瞳孔反应的一致影响支持了瞳孔反应作为语言感知过程中处理负荷的测量指标的有效性。瞳孔反应与提示回忆之间不存在关系,这可能表明提示回忆与瞳孔反应所反映的处理负荷没有直接关系。