Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T18:40:51.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of concurrent task demands on language planning in fluent children and adults

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2015

JAYANTHI SASISEKARAN  and
CARA DONOHUE
JAYANTHI SASISEKARAN*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
CARA DONOHUE
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Jayanthi Sasisekaran, Department of Speech–Language–Hearing Sciences, University of Minnesota, 164 Pillsbury Drive SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail: sasis001@umn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate how children and adults allocate cognitive resources to performing segmental encoding and monitoring in a dual-task paradigm and the response patterns of the primary and secondary tasks in the dual task. Participants were 20 children divided equally into two age groups (7–11 and 12–15 years) and 10 adults. The primary task required participants to monitor phonemic segments in a picture–written word interference paradigm while silently naming the pictures. The picture and distractor word were the same (replica), related (phoneme onset overlap), or unrelated. The secondary task required participants to make pitch judgments on tones presented at short (330 ms) or long (1130 ms) stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) from picture onset. Developmental differences were observed in both response times and percentage errors in the primary and secondary tasks. Slower responses to the primary task were evident at the long SOA, related condition. Slower response times to the tone decision task were evident at the short rather than the long SOA. The findings support the capacity sharing account of dual-task performance and suggest that dual-task costs during language planning are higher in children than in adults.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 37 , Issue 6 , November 2016 , pp. 1311 - 1336
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bernstein Ratner, N. (1997). Stuttering a psycholinguistic perspective. In Curlee, R. & Seigel, G. (Eds.), Nature and treatment of stuttering: New directions (2nd ed. pp. 99–127). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2013). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.51. Retrieved June 2, 2013, from http://www.praat.org/ Google Scholar
Bonte, M., & Blomert, L. (2004). Developmental changes in ERP correlates of spoken word recognition during early school years: A phonological priming study. Clinical Neurophysiology, 115, 409–423.Google Scholar
Bortfield, H., Leon, S. D., Bloom, J. E., Schober, M. F., & Brennan, S. E. (2001). Disfluency rates in spontaneous speech: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 44, 123–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, S., Lotto, A., Lewis, D., Hoover, B., & Stelmachowicz, P. (2008). Attentional modulation of word recognition by children in a dual-task paradigm. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 1042–1054.Google Scholar
Cook, A. E., & Meyer, A. S. (2008). Capacity demands of phoneme selection in word production: New evidence from dual-task experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 886–899.Google ScholarPubMed
Dell, G., & O'Seaghdha, P. (1991) Mediated and convergent lexical priming in language production: A comment on Levelt et al. 1991. Psychological Review, 98, 604–614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, V., & Pashler, H. (2002). Central bottleneck influences on the processing stages of word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 28, 1187–1199.Google ScholarPubMed
Gilhooly, K. J., & Logie, R. H. (1980). Age of acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity and ambiguity measures for 1944 words. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 12, 395–427.Google Scholar
Halford, G. S., Maybery, M. T., & Bain, J. D. (1986). Capacity limitations in children’s reasoning: A dual task approach. Child Development, 57, 616–627.Google Scholar
Irwin Chase, H., & Burns, B. (2000). Developmental changes in children's abilities to share and allocate attention in a dual task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 61–85.Google Scholar
Jescheniak, J. D., Hahne, A., Hoffmann, S., & Wagner, V. (2006). Phonological activation of category coordinates during speech planning is observable in children but not in adults: Evidence for cascaded processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 373–386.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lindamood, C. H., & Lindamood, P. C. (1979). The Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization test (LAC)—Third edition. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.Google Scholar
Mädebach, A., Jescheniak, J. D., Oppermann, F., & Schriefers, H. (2011). Ease of processing constrains the activation flow in the conceptual–lexical system during speech planning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 639–660.Google Scholar
McCann, R. S., Remington, R. W., & Van Selst, M. (2000). A dual-task investigation of automaticity in visual word-processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1352–1370.Google ScholarPubMed
Pascual-Leone, J. (1970). A mathematical model for the transition rule in Piaget's developmental stages. Acta Psychologica, 63, 301–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244.Google Scholar
Postma, A., & Kolk, H. (1993). The covert repair hypothesis: Prearticulatory repair processes in normal and stuttered disfluencies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 472–487.Google Scholar
Ratcliffe, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510–532.Google Scholar
Sasisekaran, J., & Weber-Fox, C. (2012). Cross-sectional study of phoneme and rhyme monitoring abilities in children between 7 and 13 years. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 253–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaefer, S., Krampe, R. T., Lindenberger, U., & Baltes, P. B. (2008). Age differences between children and young adults in the dynamics of dual-task prioritization: Body (balance) vs. mind (memory). Developmental Psychology, 44, 747–757.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, J. G., &Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6, 174–215.Google Scholar
Telford, C. (1931). The refractory phase of voluntary and associative response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 1–35.Google Scholar
Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 3–18.Google Scholar
Vasic, N., & Wijnen, F. (2005). Stuttering as a monitoring deficit. In Hartsuiker, R. J., Bastiaanse, R., Postma, A., & Wijnen, F. (Eds.), Phonological encoding and monitoring in normal and pathological speech (pp. 226–247). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Wijnen, F. (1990). The development of sentence planning. Journal of Child Language, 17, 651–675.Google Scholar
Williams, K. (1997). Expressive Vocabulary Test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Yaruss, S., Newman, R., & Flora, T. (1999). Language and disfluency in nonstuttering children's conversational speech. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 24, 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar