_______________________
A Dissertation
The College of Graduate and Professional Studies
______________________
_______________________
Graduation or Proposal Month Year
(Keywords: cognitive booster, face naming, object naming cognitive psychology, lexical retrieval, semantic executive functions)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 4
Overview of Problem 4
Problem Statement 9
Purpose of the Study 10
Research Questions and Objectives 10
Research Question 11
Objectives 11
Definition of Terms 12
Methodology 13
Significance of the Research 15
References 16
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
An investigation was undertaken to try to identify an executive function that acts as a type of mechanism resulting in a “cognitive booster” (Oppenheim, Dell, & Schwartz 2010). The cognitive booster was found to enhance the executive functioning of recognition for naming faces and objects. The research is based on quantitative methods using experiments where subjects participate in the naming process. The project aims to capture a form of the booster mechanism reported by Oppenheim et al. (2010). The following chapter lists the basic research design, research question, scope and purpose of the research and other relevant items to introduce the project. Lexical access, mental lexicon and language are defined.
Overview of Problem
Lexical access is a brain mechanism that allows word recovery from an individual’s mental lexicon. The semantic and syntactic processes in the adult brain are separated according to languages’ functional neuroanatomy. Two decade of studies focused on the executive function of lexical retrieval is the basis for this research with several practical applications. The brain’s executive functions are related by similar and diverse attributes (Miyake et al., 2000). Frontal lobe tasks of the brain are also known as executive tasks. Miyake et al. (2000) divided the executive tasks into three categories.
Mental set shifting (Changing back and forth between task sets ),
Information monitoring and updating (Bring up-to-date the representations in working memory), and
Inhibition of proponent responses (Inhibiting dominant responses) (Miyake et al., 2000; Friedman et al., 2008).
Lexical access can be understood as “numerical computations” and the steps in the computations include the (a) lexical activation, (b) lexical competition, and (c) lexical selection (Brennan et al., 2014). Therefore, lexical accessing is a cognitive executive function that encompasses not only words but also images.
Executive Functions
The research by Miyake et al. (2000: p. 49) reinforced the thesis that executive functions can be recognized as carrying out separate tasks, while at the same time the functions are “moderately correlated.” Identifying how executive functions are controlled and coordinated in particular cognitive processes is still an important component of cognitive process research. Friedman et al. (2008) published research suggesting that the individual differences are genetic, that is controlled by genetic influence. The research by Friedman et al. (2008) showed that although the functions are correlated while at the same time showing the capability of separation.
Predicting lexical retrieval
Repetition priming and semantic interference can be model in order to predict lexical retrieval in speech production designed to represent error-driven learning “to its lexical activation network” (Oppenheim, Dell, & Schwartz 2010). The model was developed to reproduce natural priming and semantic interference processes (Oppenheim, Dell, & Schwartz 2010). The interference from semantic and syntactic neural components can influence a participant’s understanding of words that are presented in a sentence (Glaser et al. 2013). Two possibilities are considered in research to date. Firstly, that whole sentences are held in active memory “until all linguistically dependent constituents are integrated”; and secondly, a “cue-driven associative retrieval mechanism” (Glaser et al., 2013). The argument for the cue-driven association suggests that with a limited space for memory, cues are used to restore the needed information or bring “the attention into focus” (Glaser et al. 2013).
Social Media
The most used application in contemporary times is social media like Facebook and the many other similar websites. The ability of users to retrieve images from social media accurately and efficiently adds to the pleasure of the using the application. On the other hand, the brain processes that are involved are highly complex (Shao, Xiao, Wu, & Zhuang, 2013). The research of Shao et al. (2013) is based on modeling the complex interactions and high-order relationships so the user experiences a “fast similarity over large scale data.” of (Shao et al., 2013, p. 49). The purpose is to better understand the users’ capabilities to gain meaning and recognize differences in the social contents and images (Shao et al., 2013). Picasa and Flickr are dedicated to uploading and sharing photographs. Shao et al. (2013: 49) explain that photos from the same individual or photos with the same location have a greater probability of a “higher semantic similarity.”
Neutral versus emotional words
Neutral and emotional words when visually processed differently (Kissler & Herbert, 2013). The differences were identified with respect to time using by measuring ERP using electro-cephalographic instrumentation. Emotional words were more quickly accessed than neutral words (Kissler & Herbert, 2007). Research on the brain’s use of visual representations of spoken words during the lexical access enhanced a theory that “sensory aspects of a lexical item are not a consequence of lexical activation” (Lewis & Poeppel, 2014). Brennan et al., 2014) studied the lexical access used when understanding verbally spoken words and suggested that the timing of the process parallels how speech incrementally becomes identified. The research concluded that speaking a word by a transmitter to a receiver who hears the word is linked to “early stages of lexical access” (Brennan et al. 2014).
Llorens et al. (2014) published research on how familiarization and repetition influence picture naming. Measurements were carried out by measuring neural responses with electrophysiological signatures. The basis of the test was to use no repetitions and unfamiliar pictures or to use familiar pictures with repetition. The result of the research showed that familiarity can be a control of picture naming and so can repetition of the images, but to a lesser degree.
Semantic interferences can be recognized as error producing mechanism. Oppenheim, Dell, and Schwartz (2010) explained that once a dog is named the next picture with a dog is named more quickly due to repetition priming, but interference is produced when the viewer is subsequently shown a picture of a cat. The interference is described as semantic interference. Some of the research looking at behavioural changes in naming suggest that a competitive mechanism in the brain for lexical selection (Oppenheim et al., 2010).
Face Naming
Face naming is a difficult task for many people including individuals with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). In AD recognizing faces and putting a name to the face becomes more difficult (Tak & Hong, 2014). The cognitive function that allows individuals to remember a face and name is highly complex. Faces are difficult to identify because on one hand faces are very complex features, yet, on the other hand faces have many similarities (Tak & Hong, 2014). Another factor that adds to the difficulty in remembering the name that goes with a face is that names are not matched to the face; names are arbitrarily assigned for other reasons (Tak & Hong, 2014). Forgetting the name of your neighbour, but still remembering the person is your neighbour is an average type of forgetfulness (Tak & Hong, 2014). The AD patient does not know who they are talking with and does not remember any of the contextual cues that would help them remember the role of the person in their life (Tak & Hong, 2014). Cognitive interventions to improve procedural memory for people with AD are successful (Tak & Hong, 2014).
Face-naming is essential to our daily lives because the ability to read socio-emotional cues from the face give important signals (Tak & Hong, 2014). The cognitive control a person possesses is significant to learning, to planning and to inhibiting improper or incorrect behaviour (Hammer, Heldmann & Munte, 2013). Memory functions in our brain do not usually hold only one name per face but several names and associations are in memory, making the remembering of faces more difficult and enhancing the chance of error (Hammer et al., 2013). People without AD or other neurological problems were studied by comparing neural retrieval mechanisms when errors are made in face naming to errorless face naming (Hammer et al., 2013). Training was carried out before the face naming tests (a) training defined as errorless took place without any detractors and (b) errorful training was carried out in the presence of one or two distracters (Hammer et al., 2013). The researchers found that “Increased interference (induced by different numbers of distracters) hampers the successful retrieval of face-name associations” (Hammer et al., 2013).
Identifying faces is both perceptual and cognitive in humans (Watier & Collin, 2011:143). The problems for face identification in trauma patients are due to damage of the frontal lobe leading to “impairments in monitoring and control” Watier & Collin, 2011). The Judgment of Learning effect was reproduced based on associative recognition; “the magnitude of the effect was lower compared with cued-recall” (Waiter & Collin, 2011:13).
Problem Statement
Every day, individuals make identifications of faces, but in naming trials face naming is difficult but on the other hand face naming is something fun that people enjoy. Semantic and syntactic processes in the adult brain are separated according to languages’ functional neuroanatomy. A decade of studies Repetition priming and semantic interference can be model in order to predict lexical retrieval in speech production designed to represent error-driven learning “to its lexical activation network” (Oppenheim, Dell, & Schwartz 2010). The model was developed to reproduce natural priming and semantic interference processes (Oppenheim, Dell, & Schwartz 2010). The need to identify and measure the booster and the anti-booster measurement introduced into the current study are significant to adding knowledge to research on enhancing correct face naming. The booster also described as the enhanced mechanism that can aid lexical retrieval, needs to be identified and measured. A new experiment was designed using face naming trials with famous faces, but the experiment is not the same as others. The experiment starts with a naming trial (A) and ends with a naming trial (B), and in between the interval of carrying out trial A and trial B, two other tasks are carried out. (The methodology section explains the experiment in more tdetail Offering two naming trials can possibly strengthen the lexical connections, only an experiment shows whether the effect is positive or negative (Oppenheim et al., 2010; McCarthy & Kartsounis, 2000).
Studies of error during the development of executive functions was considered in terms of the possibility that the viewer was taking time to consciously reflect before completing their first naming task trial (Cooper, 2009). Cooper (2009) discussed error in trial A compared to a later naming task, trial B. Interval tasks between trial A and B can also be contributors to error or not depending on the design of the interval tasks (Cooper, 2009). The experiment is related to errors between trial A and B with two intermediary tasks.
The motivation for the study was the need to know the variables that can predict object naming times; a participant exhibits high semantic inhibition; or a participant exhibits low semantic inhibition. In other words, what is the cognitive predictor that can most accurately predict the outcomes?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to gain knowledge about face naming with special focus on the booster mechanism that enhances the lexical retrieval of the viewers. The study takes into account face naming of famous faces after time in order to learn if the face naming is strengthened or not in Trial B. Trial A is a way to prime the viewers so that in trial B can possibly name the famous faces more quickly and accurately. The assumption is made that priming the viewers can produce a booster. The purpose is to learn as much as possible about the booster effect and a way to measure the booster. The research presents new components of research design in order to choose the faces for participants to identify and new techniques to enhance identifying the booster mechanism. The research observes the efficiency possible for accessing information from the brain, possibly by using executive functions working together
Research Questions and Objectives
Hypothesis
If words that are similarly semantic are grouped together, than high booster scores indicate the faster object naming time intervals. Participants with high booster scores are correlated with low object naming times indicating that a high booster score is linked to an ability to carry out cognitive tasks better than the anti-booster group of participants. The cognitive tasks they are better at carrying out are activities including object naming times (shorter times) with fewer interference effects.
Participants who finish a cognitive task such as the letter cancellation tasks that assess cognitive processing speed leading to faster completion of object naming tasks when the semantically grouped objects. Therefore, the participant is experiencing less semantic interface effects accompanied with the ability to suppress competitors.
Variables
The criterion variable is the time used for object naming
The predictor variables are the booster, the anti-booster, and letter cancellation.
Null Hypothesis
The participants with high anti-booster measures exhibit more interference effects. The participants with high anti-booster measurements possess less efficient executive functioning, slower object response times, and quicker letter cancellation times. Those attributes are expected to show slower object naming times.
Research Question
Can a measurement of a booster effect be made and used to determine faster object naming times and indicating fewer semantic interference effects?
Objectives
Definition of Terms
Event Related Potential (ERP)
ERP is a measurement of brain response that involves electro-physiological response to some stimulus; event brain-related potential.
Executive functions
Brain activities are carried out as psychological and neuropsychological as executive functions. The executive functions are the “cognitive control processes that regulate thought and action” (Friedman et al., 2008: 201).
Lexical access
Lexical describes words, morphemes, and vocabulary of language, while access describes the retrieval of words.
Lexicality effects
Lexicality effects take under consideration real words versus pseudo words (Kissler & Herbert, 2013). “Emotion, Etmnooi or Emitoon” are examples of how the word emotion might be retrieved from the brain; one is the real word ‘emotion’ and the other two words are pseudo-words (Kissler & Herbert, 2013, p. 464).
Mental lexicon
The mental lexicon is the brain’s inventory of words available for use.
Syntactic
Syntactic is the adjective form of syntax. Words that are morphemes, like blackberry and blueberry, are produced by putting the two words together in the same order the words are used in sentences are syntactic.
Methodology
The research of Miyake, Shao and Oppenheimer are the basis for this study; the research is designed to add knowledge to previous research by focusing on observing, recognizing, and measuring cognitive booster mechanism with reference to enhancing executive functions used for naming objects and faces. The measurement methodology was introduced by Oppenheimer et al. (2010). The next part of the experiment requires evaluating whether or not the booster score correlates with object naming times, when the objects are grouped semantically.
The research design incorporates four steps. One face naming task takes place at the beginning of the experiment (Trial A). And then, an object naming task and a letter cancellation task are given to the participants (the two interval tasks). The fourth step is a second naming task that is given at the end of the experiment (Trial B).
The images used in the experiment are famous faces. A specific design was carried out to use famous faces in the experiment that are familiar to the participants; if the participants do not recognize the famous faces used in naming tests than new errors are added. Therefore, the researcher devised the following process. First of all, a questionnaire was distributed to random students at the University of East London. The students were asked to name the first ten famous faces they recall from memory. The data was analyzed and the famous faces that were listed the most often were chosen. The idea to learn the famous faces most well-known by University of East London was in order to try to ensure that the participants in the face naming experiment can recognize and name the faces in the test.
The research aims to identify and measure a memory enhancer or ‘booster’, as well as the ‘anti-booster’ The booster is measured by the change between the first and second trial, when a participant does not identify a face correctly in the first trial, but successfully identifies the face in the second trial. The anti-booster is applied to the making a correct face identification in Trial A but makes an incorrect face identification in Trial B. The correct retrieval of the face in the second trial after a failure to do in the first trial is the measure of the booster. The expected result is that by semantically grouped names are going to provide faster object naming times; the faster object naming time is assumed to be due to reduced semantic interference effects.
The statics used to quantify the results are carried out as a multiple regression analysis on the variables.
Assumptions
The expected outcome is that the participants who have high booster scores will have low object naming times, based on the assumption that high booster score will have low object naming times. A participant with a high booster score is showing that they are better at cognitive tasks such as object naming times; they show little interference effects in object naming with semantically grouped pictures. The participants with higher anti-booster scores are slower at object naming times; more time is needed to name objects and more interference effects are exhibited.
Significance of the Research
The face naming experiment is significant because the research design is unique. The research design is targeting the booster mechanism that needs more investigation. The booster mechanism enhances the ability of an individual to more efficiently name famous faces. The uniqueness of the research starts in the way the famous faces were chosen. The famous faces were chosen with a careful process so that the participants would be likely to recognize the faces. The research offers a process to measure of the booster mechanism is developed in the research and quantifies the results.
References
An Y, Shao C, Wang X, et al. (2011) Geometric properties estimation from discrete curves using discrete derivatives. Computers & Graphics 35: 916-930.
Belke E. (2013) Long-lasting inhibitory semantic context effects on object naming are necessarily conceptually mediated: Implications for models of lexical-semantic encoding. Journal of Memory and Language 69: 228-256.
Das JP. (2015) Chapter 3 - Three Faces of Cognitive Processes: Theory, Assessment, and Intervention. In: Kirby TCPKPR (ed) Cognition, Intelligence, and Achievement. San Diego: Academic Press, 19-47.
de Zubicaray G, Johnson K, Howard D, et al. (2014) A perfusion fMRI investigation of thematic and categorical context effects in the spoken production of object names. Cortex 54: 135-149.
Gallegos DR and Tranel D. (2005) Positive facial affect facilitates the identification of famous faces. Brain and Language 93: 338-348.
Gay O, Plaze M, Oppenheim a, et al. (2012) Poster #127 CLINICAL AND BRAIN IMAGING CORRELATES OF NEUROLOGICAL SOFT SIGNS IN SCHIZOPHRENIA: A CONTRIBUTION TO THE NEURODEVELOPMENTAL MODEL OF SCHIZOPHRENIA. Schizophrenia Research 136, Supplement 1: S231.
Glaser YG, Martin RC, Van Dyke JA, et al. (2013) Neural basis of semantic and syntactic interference in sentence comprehension. Brain and Language 126: 314-326.
Gould TW and Oppenheim RW. (2007) Synaptic dysfunction in disease and following injury in the developing and adult nervous system: Caveats in the choice of therapeutic intervention. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 31: 1073-1087.
Kissler J and Herbert C. (2013) Emotion, Etmnooi, or Emitoon? – Faster lexical access to emotional than to neutral words during reading. Biological Psychology 92: 464-479.
Krebs M-O, Gay O, Plaze M, et al. (2012) Poster #130 CORTICAL GYRIFICATION AND NEUROLOGICAL SOFT SIGNS IN SCHIZOPHRENIA: MARKERS OF DEVELOPMENTAL LOAD. Schizophrenia Research 136, Supplement 1: S232.
Lewis G and Poeppel D. (2014) The role of visual representations during the lexical access of spoken words. Brain and Language 134: 1-10.
Liu Y, Shao J, Xiao J, et al. (2013) Hypergraph Spectral Hashing for image retrieval with heterogeneous social contexts. Neurocomputing 119: 49-58.
Llorens A, Trébuchon A, Riès S, et al. (2014) How familiarization and repetition modulate the picture naming network. Brain and Language 133: 47-58.
Oppenheim GM, Dell GS and Schwartz MF. (2010) The dark side of incremental learning: A model of cumulative semantic interference during lexical access in speech production. Cognition 114: 227-252.
Piai V and Roelofs A. (2013) Working memory capacity and dual-task interference in picture naming. Acta Psychologica 142: 332-342.
Porcaro C, Medaglia MT and Krott A. (2015) Removing speech artifacts from electroencephalographic recordings during overt picture naming. NeuroImage 105: 171-180.
Rabipour S and Raz A. (2012) Training the brain: Fact and fad in cognitive and behavioral remediation. Brain and Cognition 79: 159-179.
Richler JJ, Palmeri TJ and Gauthier I. (2013) How does using object names influence visual recognition memory? Journal of Memory and Language 68: 10-25.
Shao, J. & Rao, J.N.K. (1994)
Shao, Z., Roelofs, A., Martin, R., & Meyer, A. S. (2013). Selective inhibition and naming performance in semantic blocking, picture-word interference, and color-word Stroop tasks. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Shao, Z., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (2012). Sources of individual differences in the speed of naming objects and actions: The contribution of executive control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1927-1944. doi:10.1080/17470218.2012.670252.
Shao, Z., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (2014). Predicting naming latencies for action pictures: Dutch norms. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 274-283. doi:10.3758/s13428-013- 0358-6.
Zhang Q and Zhu X. (2011) The temporal and spatial features of segmental and suprasegmental encoding during implicit picture naming: An event-related potential study. Neuropsychologia 49: 3813-3825.
Zhao H, La Heij W and Schiller NO. (2012) Orthographic and phonological facilitation in speech production: New evidence from picture naming in Chinese. Acta Psychologica 139: 272-280.
Shao, Z., Meyer, A. S., & Roelofs, A. (2013). Selective and nonselective inhibition of competitors in picture naming. Memory & Cognition, 41, 1200-1211. doi:10.3758/s13421-013-0332-7
