Is conceptual priming for environmental sounds obligatory?

Orgs, Guido; Lange, Kathrin; Dombrowski, Jan-Henryk; Heil, Martin

doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2007.03.003

Cited by 39 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, the distribution of the compatibility effect indicated clear dissociations between T2 physical versus T1 linguistic and T3 imagery . Whereas T2 physical shows an anterior-posterior distribution of the matchmismatch effect, the T1 linguistic and T3 imagery conditions show an N400-like component with a central maximum (see Orgs et al, 2006Orgs et al, , 2007Orgs et al, , 2008Van Petten & Rheinfelder, 1995). Additional analysis of the difference waveforms (mismatch minus match) supported these findings (see Appendix C, Figure 12).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…Thus, the sentence condition might have resulted in a similar pattern as the imagery condition, whereas in other task setups these effects might not occur automatically during sentence reading. However, in previous studies by Orgs et al (2007Orgs et al ( , 2008, it was shown that cross-modal match-mismatch effects occur under various task conditions, even when participants only had to indicate whether a sound was presented on the left or the right side. Thus, we would argue that it is not the specific task that resulted in the observed effects in the sentence task.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Effects on sound processing were observed as early as 180-220 ms in both the linguistic (T1 linguistic ) (see Orgs et al, 2006Orgs et al, , 2007Orgs et al, , 2008Van Petten & Rheinfelder, 1995) and the imagery (T3 imagery ) condition. However, these effects clearly differentiate from the effect observed in the physical control condition (T2 physical ) that served as a perceptual baseline condition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Sounds of Sentences: Differentiating the Influence of Physical Sound, Sound Imagery, and Linguistically Implied Sounds on Physical Sound Processing

Dudschig

Mackenzie

Strozyk

et al. 2016

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both the imagery literature and grounded models of language comprehension emphasize the tight coupling of high-level cognitive processes, such as forming a mental image of something or language understanding, and low-level sensorimotor processes in the brain. In an electrophysiological study, imagery and language processes were directly compared and the sensory associations of processing linguistically implied sounds or imagined sounds were investigated. Participants read sentences describing auditory events (e.g., BThe dog barks^), heard a physical (environmental) sound, or had to imagine such a sound. We examined the influence of the 3 sound conditions (linguistic, physical, imagery) on subsequent physical sound processing. Event-related potential (ERP) difference waveforms indicated that in all 3 conditions, prime compatibility influenced physical sound processing. The earliest compatibility effect was observed in the physical condition, starting in the 80-110 ms time interval with a negative maximum over occipital electrode sites. In contrast, the linguistic and the imagery condition elicited compatibility effects starting in the 180-220 ms time window with a maximum over central electrode sites. In line with the ERPs, the analysis of the oscillatory activity showed that compatibility influenced early theta and alpha band power changes in the physical, but not in the linguistic and imagery, condition. These dissociations were further confirmed by dipole localization results showing a clear separation between the source of the compatibility effect in the physical sound condition (superior temporal area) and the source of the compatibility effect triggered by the linguistically implied sounds or the imagined sounds (inferior temporal area). Implications for grounded models of language understanding are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 74%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Sounds of Sentences: Differentiating the Influence of Physical Sound, Sound Imagery, and Linguistically Implied Sounds on Physical Sound Processing

Dudschig

Mackenzie

Strozyk

et al. 2016

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Koelstra et al [8] showed how N400 eventrelated potential appears in case of mismatch between the tag and videos. This ERP was observed in response to different types of stimuli [9,10]. The contributions presented in this paper are two-fold.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Multimedia implicit tagging using EEG signals

Soleymani

Pantić

2013

2013 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electroencephalogram (EEG) signals reflect brain activities associated with emotional and cognitive processes. In this paper, we demonstrate how they can be used to find tags for multimedia content without users' direct input. Alternative methods for multimedia tagging is attracting increasing interest from multimedia community. The new portable EEG helmets are paving the way for employing brain waves in human computer interaction. In this paper, we demonstrate the performance of EEG for tagging purposes using two different scenarios on MAHNOB-HCI database. First, an emotional tagging and classification using a reduced set of electrodes is presented. The emotional responses of 24 participants to short video clips are classified into three classes on arousal and valence. We show how a reduced set of electrodes based on previous studies can preserve and even enhance the emotional classification rate. We then demonstrate the feasibility of using EEG signals for tag relevance tasks. A set of images were shown to participants first, without any tag and then with a relevant or irrelevant tag. The relevance of the tag was assessed based on the EEG responses of the participants in the first second after the tag was depicted. Finally, we demonstrate that by aggregating multiple participants' responses we can significantly improve the tagging accuracy.

show abstract

“…Subsequently to the deviance-related components, deviants in sound location notably triggered additional semantic analysis of the familiar stimulus, as indicated by an N400 elicited by familiar deviants but not standards (for N400 elicited by environmental sounds see e.g., van Petten and Rheinfelder, 1995;Cummings et al, 2006;Orgs et al, 2007; for a review on the N400 see Kutas and Federmeier, 2000). Typically, the N400 is not elicited when sounds are processed outside the focus of attention (cf.…”

Section: Location-deviant Processing For the Familiar And The Unfamilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Familiarity affects environmental sound processing outside the focus of attention: An event-related potential study

Kirmse

Jacobsen

Schröger

2009

Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tObjective: This study investigated the influence of the familiarity of an environmental sound on sound processing outside the focus of attention. Methods: By comparing ERPs elicited by a familiar, animal sound and an acoustically matched, but unfamiliar, complex sound, three issues were addressed: (a) general differences in the processing of the familiar and the unfamiliar sound, (b) influences of sound familiarity on the processing of deviants unrelated to familiarity and (c) familiarity-specific processing depending on the sound context. Participants watched a silent, subtitled movie. Results: The familiar sound elicited a centro-parietal enhancement of the N1, a frontocentrally enhanced P2 and an additional P250. Auditory deviance processing elicited by deviants in sound location was not influenced by the familiarity of the sounds. However, after an involuntary switch of attention to the deviant, an N400-like deflection indicated enhanced semantic analysis of the familiar deviant. Familiarityspecific ERP effects as a consequence of the sound context occurred between 300 and 500 ms after stimulus onset. Conclusion: Whereas familiarity of an environmental sound elicited enhanced stimulus processing before 300 ms, influences of the sound context were observed subsequent to 300 ms. Significance: Familiarity of a complex environmental sound influences several stages of auditory processing outside the focus of attention.

show abstract

Is conceptual priming for environmental sounds obligatory?

Cited by 39 publications

References 23 publications

The Sounds of Sentences: Differentiating the Influence of Physical Sound, Sound Imagery, and Linguistically Implied Sounds on Physical Sound Processing

The Sounds of Sentences: Differentiating the Influence of Physical Sound, Sound Imagery, and Linguistically Implied Sounds on Physical Sound Processing

Multimedia implicit tagging using EEG signals

Familiarity affects environmental sound processing outside the focus of attention: An event-related potential study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About