Training alters the resolution of lexical interference: Evidence for plasticity of competition and inhibition.

Abstract

Language learning is generally described as a problem of acquiring new information (e.g., new words). However, equally important are changes in how the system processes known information. For example, a wealth of studies has suggested dramatic changes over development in how efficiently children recognize familiar words, but it is unknown what kind of experience-dependent mechanisms of plasticity give rise to such changes in real-time processing. We examined the plasticity of the language processing system by testing whether a fundamental aspect of spoken word recognition, lexical interference, can be altered by experience. Adult participants were trained on a set of familiar words over a series of 4 tasks. In the high-competition (HC) condition, tasks were designed to encourage coactivation of similar words (e.g., net and neck) and to require listeners to resolve this competition. Tasks were similar in the low-competition (LC) condition, but did not enhance this competition. Immediately after training, interlexical interference was tested using a visual world paradigm task. Participants in the HC group resolved interference to a fuller degree than those in the LC group, demonstrating that experience can shape the way competition between words is resolved. TRACE simulations showed that the observed late differences in the pattern of interference resolution can be attributed to differences in the strength of lexical inhibition. These findings inform cognitive models in many domains that involve competition/interference processes, and suggest an experience-dependent mechanism of plasticity that may underlie longer term changes in processing efficiency associated with both typical and atypical development.

Learning new meanings for known words: Perturbation of original meanings and retention of new meanings

“…Similarly, an immediate change of inhibitory connections between familiar words has also been reported (Kapnoula & McMurray, 2016). In the study, two groups of participants performed a series of tasks in which either phonologically similar (e.g., neck and net) or different (e.g., neck and park; net and bait) words were presented together and therefore distinguishing the similar words was either needed or not.…”

Waiting for lexical access: Cochlear implants or severely degraded input lead listeners to process speech less incrementally

“…However, it could also be advantageous to deliberately maintain activation for certain classes of competitors in case of a mistake (Ben-David et al, 2011; Clopper & Walker, in press; McMurray et al, 2009), although this account alone does not predict why this would be the case for rhymes but not cohorts. And recent work suggests that lexical inhibition between words is also plastic and can be adapted within an hour (Kapnoula & McMurray, 2016). Such changes or a constellation of such changes could represent an adaptive response to the extreme uncertainty here, perhaps helping children (or adults faced with high uncertainty) reduce a potentially overwhelming amount of competition.…”

“…Kapnoula and McMurray (2016), for example, suggest that real-time inhibition among familiar words can be tuned by brief experience. And the growing interest in how effortful listening may change speech perception (Gosselin & Gagné, 2011; Wu et al, 2014) implicates potential control processes.…”

The Downside of Greater Lexical Influences: Selectively Poorer Speech Perception in Noise

“…Spoken word recognition involves competition among multiple lexical candidates (Dahan, Magnuson, Tanenhaus, & Hogan, 2001;Luce & Pisoni, 1998), which are activated in parallel, that agree with the partial input of the speech stream (Marslen-Wilson & Zwitserlood, 1989). Accurate word recognition demands suppression of these alternate candidates (Kapnoula & McMurray, 2016). Activation of lexical information embedded in the speech maskers in speech-in-speech conditions poses additional challenges to the speech processing system.…”