Search

This paper presents an ERP experiment examining the underlying natureof semantic representation of animate and inanimate objects. Time-lockingERP signatures to the onset of visual stimuli we found topological similaritiesin animate and inanimate object processing. Moreover, when mapping moregeneral to more specific representation (auditory to visual stimuli) we found nodifference between animates and inanimates in the N400 amplitude either. Thisstudy provides further evidence for the theory of unitary semantic organization,but no support for the feature-based prediction of segregated conceptualorganization.Surprisingly, it was also found that the P600 component, which has beenthus far mostly related to syntactic processing to be a sensitive index of conceptualprocessing. The most apparent difference regarding P600 component was foundbetween animate and inanimate matches, whereby animate matches elicitedmore positive ERP signatures in comparison to inanimate matches.

In this paper we present an ERP study examining the underlying nature of semantic representation of animate and inanimate objects. Time-locking ERP signatures to the onset of auditory stimuli we found topological similarities in animate and inanimate object processing. Moreover, we found no difference between animates and inanimates in the N400 amplitude, when mapping more specific to more general representation (visual to auditory stimuli). These studies provide further evidence for the theory of unitary semantic organization, but no support for the feature-based prediction of segregated conceptual organization. Further comparisons of animate vs. inanimate matches and within– vs. between-category mismatches revealed following results: processing of animate matches elicited more positivity than processing of inanimates within the N400 time-window; also, inanimate mismatches elicited a stronger N400 than did animate mismatches. Based on these findings we argue that one of the possible explanations for finding different and sometimes contradictory results in the literature regarding processing and representations of animates and inanimates in the brain could lie in the variability of selected items within each of the categories, that is, homogeneity of the categories.

The present eye-tracking study demonstrates that when animate and inanimate object pictures are presented within a single-study, there are no systematic differences between processing these two categories objects. Although participants were taking less time to initiate their first gaze towards animate than to inanimate objects, a result compatible with findings of Proverbio et al. (2007), it turned out that this quicker initiation of the first look in animates was driven by mammals and reptiles only and did not apply to insects or aquatic animals, most probably due to the structural differences within these subcategories. Fixations in this study do not cluster around certain features or areas of the objects for either animate or inanimate categories. Moreover, detailed analysis of looking behaviour does not reveal a clear animateinanimate distinction. Thus, given the failure of finding systematic differences between animates and inanimates when assessed using various looking behaviour measurements, the results do not support the prediction from modality specific conceptual account. In fact, these results are more in agreement with an alternative, distributed account of semantic representation that explains processing differences by structural differences between animate and inanimate objects.

This study involved presentation of animate objects under labelling and non-labelling conditions and examination of participants’ looking pattern across these conditions. Results revealed a surprisingly consistent way in which adults look at the pictures of animate objects. The head/eyes of the animals were a typical region attracting a number of fixations, but also some other parts of animals (e.g. the tail in cats, or the udder in cows and the body in snakes). Furthermore, not only did participants tend to look at similar regions of the pictures of animate objects, but also the looking order to these regions was consistent across participants. However, contrary to the original predictions, these patterns of fixations were similar across the naming and non-naming conditions (‘Look at the !’, ‘Look at the picture!’ and ‘What’s this?’, respectively), which led to the conclusion that participants’ consistency in processing animate objects was not reflecting underlying mental representation evoked by labels, but was rather driven by the structural similarity of animate objects, in particular the presence of a head.

Unlike the animate objects, where participants were consistent in their looking patterns, for inanimates it was difficult to identify both consistent areas of fixations and a consistent order of fixations. Furthermore, in comparison to animate objects, in animates received significantly shorter total looking time, shorter longest looks and a smaller number of overall fixations. However, as with animates, looking patterns did not systematically differ between the naming and non-naming conditions. These results suggested that animacy, but not labelling, impacts on looking behavior in this paradigm. In the light of feature-based accounts of semantic memory organization, one could interpret these findings as suggesting that processing of the animate objects is based on the saliency/diagnosticity of their visual features (which is then reflected through participants eye-movements towards those features), whereas processing of the inanimate objects is based more on functional features (which cannot be easily captured by looking behavior in such a paradigm).

Over the past few decades there has been a lot of debate about language learning and the opinion about the status of mental rule during the process of language learning is still divided between different researches. The present study examines learning morphology of German noun plurals based on rules, examples or on both, rules and examples. The results across these three experimental conditions suggest that the morphological patterns are learned more easily in the form of rules and thus, seem to be more easily captured by dual-route (which suggest that rules and exceptions are processed by two qualitatively different mechanisms) than single route theories (which suggest a singe mechanism for processing both rules and exceptions). However, a closer examination of error patterns across the five rules (-e, -n, -er, Ø, -s) revealed results confronting dual-route theories and suggest the existence of two rulemechanisms (-n and -s) rather than one for learning regular inflection in German plural nouns. Moreover, the second rule (with plural ending -n) was the easiest one to be learned, although it is the fifth rule (with plural ending -s) which is considered as a default rule in German.