standOff. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote shown on the same row, so the borrowing can be checked against the thing borrowed from without leaving this page. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
The reference list is not part of the text we hold for this paper. Our copy was extracted from the publisher's page and the bibliography did not survive that extraction, so the article below ends before its references. Nothing has been removed by us.
Dissociating the time courses of the cross-modal semantic priming effects elicited by naturalistic sounds and spoken words
Yi-Chuan Chen Yi-Chuan Chen
1 Crossmodal Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, 9 South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3UD UK
Find articles by Yi-Chuan Chen
1, ✉ , Charles Spence Charles Spence
1 Crossmodal Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, 9 South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3UD UK
Find articles by Charles Spence
1
Author information
Article notes
Copyright and License information
1 Crossmodal Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, 9 South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3UD UK
✉ Corresponding author.
Issue date 2018.
© The Author(s) 2017
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
PMC Copyright notice
PMCID: PMC5990551 PMID: 28600716
Abstract
phenomenonThe present study compared the time courses of the cross-modal semantic priming effects elicited by naturalistic sounds and spoken words on visual picture processing. Following an auditory prime, a picture (or blank frame) was briefly presented and then immediately masked. The participants had to judge whether or not a picture had been presented. claim_typeconcepts↗concepts↗concept_edgesconcept_edgesNaturalistic sounds consistently elicited a cross-modal semantic priming effect on visual sensitivity ( d' ) for pictures (higher d' in the congruent than in the incongruent condition) at the 350-ms rather than at the 1,000-ms stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). Spoken words mainly elicited a cross-modal semantic priming effect at the 1,000-ms rather than at the 350-ms SOA, but this effect was modulated by the order of testing these two SOAs. sensescontent_tagsIt would therefore appear that visual picture processing can be rapidly primed by naturalistic sounds via cross-modal associations, and this effect is short lived. In contrast, spoken words prime visual picture processing over a wider range of prime-target intervals, though this effect was conditioned by the prior context.
Keywords: Semantic, Multisensory, Audiovisual, Sensitivity, Priming
In daily life, hearing the sound of a dog barking is likely informative with regard to the identity of a creature that is glimpsed, albeit briefly (Chen & Spence, 2010 ). Indeed, concepts↗sensesthe presentation of either a naturalistic sound or spoken word enhances the sensitivity ( d' ) of visual object detection (Chen & Spence, 2011 ; Lupyan & Ward, 2013 ). Such results suggest that the meaning of the auditory cue facilitates visual processing and boosts the breakthrough of the visual stimulus into awareness cross-modally rather than simply giving rise to some sort of criterion change (note that the dog barking certainly induces a likely guess that the creature might be a dog as well).
The time courses of cross-modal semantic priming effects, however, appear to be different for naturalistic sounds and spoken words. Chen and Spence ( 2011 ) demonstrated that when leading the target picture by 346 ms, only naturalistic sounds (rather than spoken words) elicited a semantic priming effect on visual picture sensitivity in a simple detection task (when judging whether a picture was present or not). These results were explained based on evidence suggesting that naturalistic sounds access their associated meaning faster than spoken words do (Chen & Spence, 2013 ; Cummings et al., 2006 ; Saygin, Dick, & Bates, 2005 ). concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationsconcept_edgesThe different processing times plausibly stem from the differing routes of semantic access for each type of auditory stimulus: Naturalistic sounds access semantic information directly, whereas spoken words have to access their meanings via lexical representations (Barsalou, Santos, Simmons, & Wilson, 2008 ; Chen & Spence, 2011 ; Glaser & Glaser, 1989 ).
Lupyan and colleagues, on the other hand, demonstrated an advantage for spoken words over naturalistic sounds at longer SOAs (around 1,000 ms or more; Edmiston & Lupyan, 2015 ; Lupyan & Thompson-Schill, 2012 1 ). The participants in their studies had to verify whether the auditory cue (either a naturalistic sound or a spoken word) and the subsequently presented picture matched or not. The results demonstrate that the participants’ reaction times (RTs) were shorter for spoken words than for naturalistic sounds. Further evidence comes from an event-related potential (ERP) study: When a spoken word led a target picture by around 1,670 ms, the P1 component associated with the picture (at 70–125 ms after onset) occurred earlier in the congruent than in the incongruent condition, but no such congruency effect was induced by naturalistic sounds (Boutonnet & Lupyan, 2015 ). These results were explained in terms of spoken words being associated with semantic representations that are more abstract and categorical, thus providing a conceptual cue regarding a given object that is general rather than specific to a particular exemplar, as compared to naturalistic sounds (Edmiston & Lupyan, 2015 ; Lupyan & Thompson-Schill, 2012 ).
claim_relationsGiven the different SOAs and methods, and given the different mechanisms proposed by previous research (Chen & Spence, 2011 ; Edmiston & Lupyan, 2015 ; Lupyan & Thompson-Schill, 2012 ), we wanted to carefully examine the time courses of cross-modal semantic priming effects elicited by naturalistic sounds and spoken words. Two critical SOAs were chosen: The 350- ms SOA is close to the interval at which Chen and Spence ( 2011 ) demonstrated cross-modal semantic priming by naturalistic sounds (but not by spoken words) in a picture detection task. The 1,000-ms SOA (the interstimulus interval, ISI, was 500–650 ms) corresponds to the ISI somewhere between 400 and 1,000 ms used by Lupyan and Thompson-Schill ( 2012 ), the conditions demonstrated a cross-modal semantic advantage for spoken words over naturalistic sounds. In Experiment 1 , each participant was tested with only one of the SOAs, following the designs of Chen and Spence ( 2011 ) and Lupyan and Thompson-Schill ( 2012 ). In Experiment 2 , participants were tested with both SOAs in a counterbalanced order. In this case, we further examined whether the time courses of cross-modal semantic priming effects are stable or modulated by prior context.
Experiment 1
Method
Participants
content_tagsForty volunteers (10 males, mean age 22.2 years) took part in this experiment in exchange for course credit or five pounds (UK sterling). The participants were native English speakers or bilinguals who had started to learn English by 5 years of age. All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and normal hearing by self-report, and all were naïve as to the purpose of the study. Written informed consent was obtained prior to the start of the study. The study was approved by the Medical Sciences Inter Divisional Research Ethics Committee, University of Oxford (MSD-IDREC-C1-2014-143).
Apparatus and stimuli
The visual stimuli were presented on a 23-inch LED monitor controlled by a personal computer. The participants sat at a viewing distance of 58 cm from the monitor in a dimly lit chamber. Twenty-four outline-drawings (12 living and 12 nonliving things) taken from Snodgrass and Vanderwart ( 1980 ) and Bates et al. ( 2003 ), as well as their mirror images, were used as visual targets (see Appendix ). Five pattern masks were created by overlapping 20 nonobject figures randomly selected from Magnié, Besson, Poncet, and Dolisi ( 2003 ). Each pattern covered an area of 5.9° × 5.9°, sufficient to completely occlude all of the target pictures.
The auditory stimuli (8 bit mono; 22500 Hz digitization) were presented over closed-ear headphones and ranged in loudness from 31 to 51 dB sound pressure level (SPL). The naturalistic sounds were those produced by each of the objects. The spoken words consisted of the most commonly agreed-upon name used to refer each picture (Bates et al. 2003 ; Snodgrass & Vanderwart, 1980 ) and were produced by a female native English speaker. The naturalistic sound and the spoken word associated with the same picture were edited to have the same duration. The root mean square values of all of the auditory stimuli were equalized.
Design
method↗content_tags↗content_tags↗Two within-participants factors, prime type (naturalistic sound or spoken word) and congruency (congruent or incongruent), and one between-participants factor, SOA (350 or 1,000 ms), were manipulated. Naturalistic sounds and spoken words were presented in separate blocks of trials. content_tags↗content_tags↗content_tags↗Congruent and incongruent trials were mixed within blocks: The auditory cue matched the picture in the congruent trials, but they belonged to different categories based on the fundamental living thing versus nonliving thing separation in the incongruent trials. Each SOA was tested with 20 participants.
All 24 pictures and their mirror images were presented once in each block—either one was presented in the congruent trial and the other in the incongruent trial (and they were swapped in another block). These trials were used to estimate the participant’s hit rate in the congruent and incongruent conditions, respectively. An additional 48 picture-absent trials, consisting of an auditory cue and a blank frame, were presented to estimate the participant’s false alarm (FA) rate. These 96 trials were presented in a completely randomized order. controlsThere were two blocks for both naturalistic sounds and spoken words, and the order of these two types of auditory stimuli was counterbalanced across participants. The participants were not given any information concerning the possible semantic congruency between the auditory cue and picture prior to taking part in the study.
Procedure
The participants initiated a block of trials by pressing the enter key on the keyboard in front of them. In each trial (see Fig. 1 a), a blank frame was followed by either a frame with a picture or another blank for 17 ms (one frame at the screen refresh rate of 60 Hz). The pattern mask was presented immediately thereafter; meanwhile, the participants had to decide whether they had seen a picture (irrespective of its identity) presented before the mask by pressing the space bar. The participants were informed that the task was not speeded, and they should only respond if they were sure that they had seen a picture (i.e., they should maintain a strict response criterion).
Fig. 1.
Open in a new tab
a Sequence of three frames presented in each trial: A blank, a target picture (e.g., a dog), and a pattern mask. The target picture and pattern mask were presented in black in the center of a white background. b Represents the current experimental design in terms of signal detection theory. The distributions of dashed , dotted , and solid lines represent target present/congruent, target present/incongruent, and target absent conditions, respectively. In this design, the congruent and incongruent conditions share the same FA rate. content_tags↗content_tags↗The sensitivity ( d' ) was calculated using the equations: d' = z (hit rate) – z (FA rate) in the congruent and incongruent conditions, separately (Green & Swets, 1966 ; Macmillan & Creelman, 2005 )
Prior to the start of the main experiment, all of the pictures and their matched names were presented on the monitor in a completely randomized order across participants. Each picture-name pair was presented for 1,500 ms and interleaved by a blank frame for 500 ms. An easy practice session (eight trials with a picture duration of 33 ms) and a harder practice session (16 trials with a picture duration of 17 ms) were conducted prior to the main experiment. In the easy practice session, the accuracy had to reach 85%, or it was repeated up to three times. The stimuli in the practice session were not used in the main experiment. The experiment lasted for approximately 30 minutes.
Results
For both naturalistic sounds and spoken words, the hit rate in the congruent and incongruent conditions was estimated on the basis of 48 trials (24 pictures × 2 blocks), while the FA rate was estimated on the basis of 96 trials (48 picture-absent trials × 2 blocks; see Table 1 ); d' values were calculated based on the hit and FA rate (see Figs. 1 b– 2 ), content_tags↗and then submitted to a three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the factors of congruency, prime type, and SOA (see Table 2 for results). Critically, there was a significant three-way interaction. content_tags↗content_tagsPaired t tests (Holm-Bonferroni correction, one-tailed were used because higher d' in the congruent than the incongruent condition was expected) demonstrated the congruency effect by naturalistic sounds at the 350-ms SOA, t (19) = 2.81, p < .05, but not at the 1,000-ms SOA, t (19) = -1.63, p = .12; in contrast, the congruency effect by spoken words occurred at the 1,000-ms SOA, t (19) = 2.87, p < .05, but not at the 350-ms SOA, t (19) = 0.32, p = .75. claim_relationsWe therefore replicated the results at the 350-ms SOA reported in Chen and Spence ( 2011 ).
Table 1.
Percentage of hit and false alarm (FA) rates ( SE in parentheses) in each of the conditions in Experiment 1
SOA (ms) Sound type Hit rate FA rate
Congruent Incongruent
350 Naturalistic sound 83.4 (3.8) 79.1 (4.0) 7.1 (2.6)
Spoken word 84.0 (3.6) 81.9 (4.6) 6.7 (2.1)
1,000 Naturalistic sound 65.3 (3.7) 68.3 (4.2) 10.3 (4.0)
Spoken word 73.8 (3.5) 67.3 (3.9) 12.4 (3.6)
Open in a new tab
Fig. 2.
Open in a new tab
Mean sensitivity ( d' ) at the 350- and 1,000-ms SOAs in Experiment 1 . Error bars indicate ±1 SEM . Sound = naturalistic sounds; Word = spoken words
Table 2.
Results of analysis of sensitivity ( d' ) in Experiment 1 (three-way ANOVA: Congruency × Prime Type × SOA)
Effect
F (1, 38)
p
η p 2
Note
Congruency 5.92 <.05 0.14 Congruent (2.58) > Incongruent (2.50)
SOA 11.22 <.005 0.23 350 ms (2.99) > 1,000 ms (2.10)
Congruency × Prime Type × SOA 9.99 <.005 0.21
Open in a new tab
Experiment 2
Method
content_tagsThirty-six volunteers (seven males, mean age 19.7 years) took part in this experiment. Three factors were tested with all participants: prime type (naturalistic sound or spoken word), congruency (congruent or incongruent), and SOA (350 or 1,000 ms). The fourth factor, the order in which the SOAs were tested, was manipulated between participants: Half of the participants were tested with the 350-ms SOA in the first session and the 1,000-ms SOA in the second session (Group 1: 350–1,000 ms); the order was reversed for the remainder of the participants (Group 2: 1,000–350 ms). The stimuli and task were the same as in Experiment 1 . The experiment took an hour to complete.
Results
The participant’s d' (see Fig. 3 ) was calculated based on the hit and FA rates in each condition (see Table 3 ), and then submitted to a four-way ANOVA (see Table 4 a for the results). There was a significant three-way interaction between congruency, prime type, and order. Two separate two-way ANOVAs for each prime type with the factors of congruency and order demonstrated that content_tags↗content_tagsthe congruency effect was significant for naturalistic sounds, F (1, 34) = 7.50, p < .05, η p 2 = 0.18, without being modulated by order (Congruency × Order: F < 1, p = .87, η p 2 = 0.001). However, for spoken words, the congruency effect was modulated by order (Congruency × Order): F (1, 34) = 12.41, p < .005, η p 2 = 0.27. content_tags↗content_tagsPost hoc tests demonstrated that the congruency effect by spoken words was significant in Group 2 (1,000–350 ms), t (17) = 6.18, p < .001, but not in Group 1 (350–1,000 ms), t (17) = 0.65, p = .53. content_tagsThese results therefore suggest that the SOA order influenced the cross-modal semantic congruency effect elicited by spoken words but not by naturalistic sounds. limitationsSuch a carryover effect of the SOA from one session to the next may mask the modulation of SOA on the congruency effect from auditory cues. The data from the two sessions were therefore analyzed separately.
Fig. 3.
Open in a new tab
Mean sensitivity ( d' ) at the 350- and 1,000-ms SOAs for Group 1 (tested in the order 350- and then 1,000-ms SOA) and Group 2 (with the order reversed) in Experiment 2 . Error bars indicate ±1 SEM . Sound = naturalistic sounds; Word = spoken words
Table 3.
Percentage of hit and false alarm (FA) rates ( SE in parentheses) in each of the conditions in Experiment 2
SOA (ms) Sound type Hit rate FA rate
Congruent Incongruent
Group 1 350 (first session) Naturalistic sound 88.0 (2.3) 81.0 (4.3) 3.2 (1.4)
Spoken word 82.6 (3.8) 81.4 (4.0) 2.2 (0.6)
1,000 (second session) Naturalistic sound 71.9 (3.7) 72.3 (4.1) 2.5 (0.9)
Spoken word 71.4 (4.4) 69.0 (5.2) 1.4 (0.4)
Group 2 350 (second session) Naturalistic sound 80.7 (4.0) 75.8 (5.1) 5.6 (3.3)
Spoken word 79.2 (3.8) 67.4 (5.4) 3.5 (2.2)
1,000 (first session) Naturalistic sound 69.4 (4.0) 69.7 (4.5) 4.7 (2.2)
Spoken word 71.1 (4.9) 64.0 (5.9) 5.5 (2.3)
Open in a new tab
Table 4.
Results of analysis of sensitivity ( d' ) in Experiment 2
Effect
F (1, 34)
p
η p 2
Note
(A) Four-way ANOVA (Congruency × Prime Type × SOA × Order)
Congruency 17.85 <.001 0.34 Congruent (2.99) > Incongruent (2.85)
SOA 45.32 <.001 0.57 350 ms (3.13) > 1,000 ms (2.70)
Congruency × SOA 10.15 <.005 0.23
Congruency × Prime Type 6.46 <.05 0.16
Congruency × Order 4.49 <.05 0.12
Congruency × Prime Type × Order 16.95 <.001 0.33
(B) First session: three-way ANOVA (Congruency × Prime Type × SOA)
Congruency 8.85 <.01 0.21 Congruent (2.98) > Incongruent (2.85)
SOA 6.65 <.05 0.16 350 ms (3.26) > 1,000 ms (2.58)
Congruency × Prime Type × SOA 12.24 <.005 0.27
(C) Second session: three-way ANOVA (Congruency × Prime Type × SOA)
Congruency 15.83 <.001 0.32 Congruent (2.99) > Incongruent (2.84)
Congruency × SOA 14.41 <.005 0.30
Congruency × Prime Type 4.96 <.05 0.13
Open in a new tab
When only including the data from the first session (top row in Fig. 3 ), a three-way ANOVA with the factors of congruency, prime type, and SOA (with SOA as a between-participant factor) was conducted (see Table 4 b). This is the same design as in Experiment 1 , and the results were replicated: The three-way interaction was significant. Paired t tests demonstrated that the congruency effect by naturalistic sounds was only observed at the 350-ms SOA, t (17) = 2.50, p < .05, but not at the 1,000-ms SOA, t (17) = -0.27, p = .79. In contrast, the congruency effect by spoken words was only statistically significant at the 1,000-ms SOA, t (17) = 3.94, p < .005, but not at the 350-ms SOA, t (17) = 0.50, p = .62.
The results of the second session (bottom row in Fig. 3 ) were different from the first session (see Table 4 c). The significant interaction between congruency and SOA was attributed to the fact that the congruency effect was only significant at the 350-ms SOA, t (17) = 4.69, p < .001, but not at the 1,000-ms SOA, t (17) = 0.16, p = .87. Planned comparisons demonstrated that the congruency effect was significant at the 350-ms SOA for both naturalistic sounds, t (17) = 2.98, p < .05, and spoken words, t (17) = 4.30, p < .001, but for neither at the 1,000-ms SOA, t (17) = -0.57, p = .58, and t (17) = 0.65, p = .53, respectively. The significant interaction between congruency and prime type reflected the congruency effect being significant for spoken words, t (35) = 3.48, p < .005, but only marginally significant for naturalistic sounds, t (35) = 1.88, p = .07. The latter perhaps results from the slightly higher d' in the incongruent than in the congruent condition at the 1,000-ms SOA.
General discussion
content_tagsThe results of the present study demonstrate that the presentation of naturalistic sounds enhanced the visual sensitivity of semantically congruent pictures at the shorter SOA (350 ms) than spoken words did (1,000 ms) when each participant just encountered either one of the SOAs. sensesThe cross-modal semantic priming effects elicited by the presentation of naturalistic sounds versus spoken words can therefore be dissociated in terms of their differing time courses. Furthermore, naturalistic sounds consistently primed the visual pictures at the short SOA; in contrast, the priming effect elicited by spoken words was significantly modulated by the SOA tested beforehand. content_tagsSpecifically, when the 1,000-ms SOA (demonstrating a significant priming effect) was tested first, the priming effect carried over to the 350-ms SOA (this was not observed in Experiment 1 ). However, senseswhen the 350-ms SOA (where no priming effect was observed) was tested first, the priming effect at the 1,000-ms SOA was eliminated as well. content_tagsFinally, higher sensitivity in the 350-ms than in the 1,000-ms SOA was observed in both experiments. This can be explained by an attentional cuing effect elicited by the presentation of a temporally close auditory cue (McDonald, Teder-Sälejärvi, & Hillyard, 2000 ).
That naturalistic sounds elicited the cross-modal semantic priming effect faster (i.e., at the shorter SOA) than spoken words did suggests that the time required to access meaning for the former is shorter (Chen & Spence, 2013 ; Cummings et al., 2006 ; Saygin et al., 2005 ). Consistent evidence comes from the results of ERPs studies: For instance, Murray, Camen, Andino, Bovet, and Clarke ( 2006 ) have demonstrated that the brain activities associated with naturalistic sounds produced by living versus nonliving things can be discriminated around 70 ms to 119 ms after sound onset. The component associated with the meaning of spoken words (the N400; Kutas & Hillyard, 1980 ), on the other hand, typically starts 200 ms after word onset, and it could be delayed if the word is longer or else shares initial syllables with other words (van Petten, Coulson, Rubin, Plante, & Parks, 1999 ).
These results may partly be attributed to the nature of the acoustic signals that are associated with each type of stimulus: Naturalistic sounds associated with different object categories have distinct time-frequency spectrums from each other (e.g., Murray et al., 2006 ). By contrast, spoken words become comprehensible when the acoustic signals are abstracted into various phonetic representations, and the latter are then used to access their associated lexical representations (Obleser & Eisner, 2009 ). Consequently, a semantic network suggests that naturalistic sounds and visual pictures access semantics directly, whereas spoken words access their meanings via lexical representations (Chen & Spence, 2011 , 2017 ; Glaser & Glaser, 1989 ). Hence, the cross-modal semantic interactions between naturalistic sounds and pictures would be expected to occur more rapidly than between spoken words and pictures, as demonstrated in the present study.
At the 1,000-ms SOA, only spoken words but not naturalistic sounds gave rise to cross-modal semantic priming effects, thus suggesting that the effect induced by naturalistic sounds is short-lived (see also Chen & Spence, 2017 ; Kim, Porter, & Goolkasian, 2014 , when using the picture categorization task). mechanisms↗Given that naturalistic sounds can access their meaning rapidly (within 350 ms in the current study), the short-lived priming effect suggests that the activated meaning would be forgotten rapidly as well, unless the information can be temporally maintained. The maintenance of representations of naturalistic sounds, nevertheless, is underpinned by the auditory imagery capability, or else by being transferred into lexical codes and stored in the phonological loop (Snyder & Gregg, 2011 ; Soemer & Saito, 2015 ), and both processes take extra time or cognitive resources. In contrast, spoken words essentially have the benefit of being maintained in the phonological loop in the working memory system (Baddeley, 2012 ), thus leading to the significant priming effect over a greater range of SOAs than naturalistic sounds (current study; Chen & Spence, 2017 ).
The final contrast lies in the fact that the time course of the cross-modal semantic priming effect by naturalistic sounds was stable, whereas that elicited by spoken words was modulated by the prior context (i.e., the order in which the SOAs were tested). Audiovisual integration/interactions involving speech sounds have been demonstrated to be flexible. For example, the cross-modal semantic priming effect by spoken words can be speeded up so as to be observed at around 350-ms SOA if the participants have been exposed to the longer SOA condition (the current study) or if the participants have to identify the target picture by reporting its name (Chen & Spence, 2011 ). In addition, the integration of verbal cues and visual lip movements occurs more often (indexed by a larger McGurk effect; McGurk & McDonald, 1976 ) if a series of congruent (compared to incongruent) audiovisual speech stimuli were presented beforehand (Nahorna, Berthommier, & Schwartz, 2012 ). Finally, the digits and letters that are presented subliminally to both vision and audition would be integrated only if the participants had consciously experienced these pairings prior to the test (Faivre, Mudrik, Schwartz, & Koch, 2014 ). The higher flexibility of audiovisual interactions involving spoken words than naturalistic sounds at the semantic level perhaps stems from the former accessing the semantic representations at an abstract, categorical, and modality-insensitive level, whereas the latter served as modality-specific and context-dependent attributes associated with the object cross-modally (Edmiston & Lupyan, 2015 ; Waxman & Gelman, 2009 ).
mechanisms↗Together, the results of the two experiments reported here demonstrate that naturalistic sounds elicit more rapid cross-modal priming than do spoken words, which is likely determined by their speed of semantic access stemming from the different processing routes. On the other hand, the advantage of spoken words over naturalistic sounds to prime visual pictures across a more prolonged prime-target interval should result from the former being better maintained in working memory. Finally, consistent with previous studies, interactions between spoken words and visual signals are flexible—that is, they can be enhanced or inhibited by prior context or by task demands.
Acknowledgements
The authors are supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), Rethinking the Senses grant (AH/L007053/1).
Appendix
The auditory stimuli used in the present study. Note that the lengths of the naturalistic sound and spoken word referring to the same picture were matched at 350 ms for the 14 one-syllable words, 450 ms for the seven two-syllable words, and 500 ms for the three- (or more) syllable words (three words). The identification accuracy, confidence, and familiarity ratings (maximum score = 7) for the sounds reflect the mean performance of 18 participants (four males, mean age 28 years, reported in Chen & Spence, 2011 ). The ratings of imagery concordance (maximum score = 5) were acquired via an online study (30 participants for naturalistic sounds, 18 males, mean age 31 years; 30 participants for spoken words, 19 males, mean age 33 years). All scores were lower for naturalistic sounds than for spoken words. Identification accuracy: t (23) = 5.42, p < .001; confidence rating: t (25) = 8.33, p < .001; familiarity rating: t (26) = 8.38, p < .001; imagery concordance: t (24) = 4.24, p < .001; two-tailed, unequal variance assumed
Naturalistic sounds Spoken words
Picture(Spoken word) Naturalistic sound Duration (ms) Identification accuracy (%) Mean confidence rating Mean familiarity rating Mean imagery concordance Identification accuracy (%) Mean confidence rating Mean familiarity rating Mean imagery concordance
Bird Bird chirping 350 77.8 4.7 4.8 4.4 100 6.9 6.9 4.7
Cat “Meow” 350 100 6.2 6.3 4.4 100 7.0 7.0 4.8
Cow “Moo” 350 88.9 6.4 6.3 4.8 100 6.9 7.0 4.8
Dog “Woof” 350 94.4 6.4 6.4 4.3 100 6.9 6.9 4.8
Duck “Quack” 350 100 6.8 6.3 4.5 100 6.9 6.9 4.8
Eagle Eagle call 450 55.6 4.9 4.6 4.5 100 6.8 6.9 4.8
Elephant Roar 500 61.1 4.8 4.6 4.7 100 6.9 6.9 4.9
Frog “Ribbit” 350 83.3 5.1 5.1 4.2 100 7.0 7.0 4.9
Goat “Baa-baa” 350 72.2 5.6 5.4 4.4 100 6.9 6.7 4.9
Horse Horse neighing 350 61.1 5.2 4.9 4.0 94 6.2 6.7 4.9
Pig “Oink” 350 50.0 5.2 5.4 4.2 100 6.9 7.0 4.9
Rooster Crowing sound 450 88.9 5.8 5.6 4.7 100 6.9 6.2 4.8
Car Car starting 350 77.8 5.4 5.8 4.0 100 7.0 7.0 4.6
Door Creak 350 88.9 4.8 5.2 4.3 100 6.9 6.8 4.7
Drum Banging of a drum 350 94.4 5.8 5.8 4.3 100 7.0 6.8 4.8
Guitar Guitar sound 450 88.9 6.0 6.4 4.8 100 7.0 6.9 4.9
Gun Gunshot 350 61.1 4.3 4.1 3.6 100 6.9 6.9 4.8
Motorcycle “Vroom-vroom” 500 33.3 4.8 5.1 3.4 100 6.9 6.7 4.7
Piano Piano sound 450 94.4 6.1 6.2 4.8 100 7.0 6.9 4.7
Scissors Clipping scissors 450 22.2 3.2 3.8 3.7 100 6.9 6.9 4.9
Switch Click 350 27.8 3.8 4.2 2.0 100 6.6 6.5 4.6
Telephone Telephone ringing 500 100 6.6 6.7 4.7 100 7.0 7.0 4.6
Trumpet Trumpet sound 450 83.3 5.3 5.3 4.6 100 7.0 6.7 4.9
Whistle Whistling 450 66.7 5.4 5.5 4.8 94.4 6.8 6.6 4.9
Mean ( SEM ) 60.9 (7.9) 5.2 (0.2) 5.2 (0.2) 4.3 (0.1) 98.7 (0.9) 6.9 (0.1) 6.8 (0.1) 4.8 (0.02)
Open in a new tab
The stimuli used in the practice sessions were fly (humming fly), tiger (tiger roaring), bell (bell ringing), and cannon (cannon fire)
Footnotes
1 The interstimulus interval was 400, 1000, or 1500 ms in Lupyan and Thompson-Schill ( 2012 ). However, since they did not report the duration of the auditory cue, it is not possible to determine the corresponding SOAs. Nevertheless, the SOAs were certainly longer than the 346 ms in Chen and Spence ( 2011 ).
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 3 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | existence | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | cross-modal semantic priming | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | behavioural-experiment also in: behavioural-experiment | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | In the within-participants design of Experiment 2 the priming effect carried over between sessions, which can mask the effect of SOA. | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| controls | the order of the naturalistic-sound and spoken-word blocks was counterbalanced across participants eliminates: that a difference between the two stimulus types is an order or fatigue effect · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | cross-modal semantic priming also in: cross-modal semantic priming | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | naturalistic sounds also in: naturalistic sounds | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | spoken words also in: spoken words | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | lexical representations also in: lexical representations | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | stimulus onset asynchrony also in: stimulus onset asynchrony | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | sensitivity also in: sensitivity | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | spoken words → their meanings THE MEDIATION RELATION, AND NO TYPE IN THE VOCABULARY CAN EXPRESS IT. The paper's whole explanation of its dissociated time courses is a ROUTE: naturalistic sounds access semantic information DIRECTLY, whereas spoken words have to access their meanings VIA LEXICAL REPRESENTATIONS - one hop against two, which is why the sound primes at 350 ms and the word at 1,000. 'causes' asserts production and would lose the intermediate stage entirely; 'operationalised-as' says the authors CHOSE a measure, which is not what is claimed; 'part-of' says lexical representations are a component of the meaning rather than a stage on the way to it. Splitting it into two 'causes' edges (spoken words -> lexical representations, lexical representations -> meaning) would assert two direct productions where the paper asserts one indirect one, and would silently license the inference that the first can occur without the second. A is reached from B THROUGH C is one of the commonest claims in the psychology half of this corpus and there is nowhere to put it. Filed as; the same gap is why the Chen2018 record carries five concepts and only three edges. | unhoused_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | priming measured as SENSITIVITY (d'), not as speed - and the alternative explicitly refused. The claim is that the auditory cue helps the picture BREAK THROUGH INTO AWARENESS `rather than simply giving rise to some sort of criterion change`: the participant sees more, rather than becoming readier to say yes. A signal-detection design used for exactly what it is for, which is rare in this corpus | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | TIME COURSE AS THE INDIVIDUATING PROPERTY - two primes carrying the same meaning, producing the same effect on the same measure, told apart only by WHEN. Naturalistic sounds prime at 350 ms and not at 1,000; spoken words at 1,000 and not at 350. If the effect were named by what it does, these would be one thing; the paper's title insists they are two, and the difference is a latency | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | the word effect is CONDITIONED BY THE ORDER OF TESTING, and the paper reports both halves: meet the 1,000-ms SOA first and priming carries over to 350 ms; meet the 350-ms SOA first - where nothing happens - and the 1,000-ms effect is eliminated too. A priming effect that depends on what the participant was tested on beforehand is partly a fact about the paradigm rather than about the mind, and a corpus of priming records should be able to find the papers that said so | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `via cross-modal associations` and `short lived` - the abstract's own characterisation of the sound effect, and both halves matter. The route is associative rather than lexical, and the duration is explicitly limited, which is what distinguishes this from the long-lasting perceptual priming other records in this corpus describe | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | replicates → Chen and Spence (2011) | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Chen & Spence (2011); Edmiston & Lupyan (2015); Lupyan & Thompson-Schill (2012) | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | naturalistic sounds —distinct-from→ spoken words differs in: THE ROUTE TO MEANING, AND THEREFORE THE LATENCY - naturalistic sounds access semantic information directly, spoken words must go via lexical representations first. One hop against two, which is the paper's whole explanation of the dissociated time courses · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: The strongest row on this record: the distinction, its mechanism and its consequence are all in one sentence, and the sentence is the paper's own explanation rather than my reconstruction. 'plausibly' is the authors' hedge and it is inside the quote. also in: naturalistic sounds · spoken words | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | naturalistic sounds —causes→ cross-modal semantic priming direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: 'consistently' is the paper's word and is why this one is weighted above the word effect: the sound result held across both experiments, while the spoken-word result was modulated by testing order. also in: naturalistic sounds · cross-modal semantic priming | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | cross-modal semantic priming —operationalised-as→ sensitivity strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: THE MEASUREMENT DECISION: the effect is defined as a change in d' - higher in the congruent than the incongruent condition - rather than as a change in speed. The paper argues for it rather than assuming it, and refuses the response-criterion reading explicitly; that refusal is the sense row, because the sentence carrying it does not name the effect. also in: cross-modal semantic priming · sensitivity | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | ANOVA also in: ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | t-test also in: t-test | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | effect size also in: effect size | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | p-value also in: p-value | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | signal detection sensitivity index also in: signal detection sensitivity index | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Naturalistic sounds boosted detection sensitivity for semantically congruent pictures at the short (350 ms) prime-target interval, whereas spoken words only did so at the long (1,000 ms) interval, when each participant saw only one interval. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The priming effect of naturalistic sounds is fast but does not persist to the longer interval. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | In Experiment 2, testing order changed the spoken-word effect but left the naturalistic-sound effect intact. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | When the effective 1,000-ms interval was tested first, the spoken-word priming effect carried over to the 350-ms interval. | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Detection sensitivity was higher at the 350-ms than at the 1,000-ms interval in both experiments. | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | sensitivity also in: sensitivity | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | congruent trials also in: congruent trials | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | incongruent trials also in: incongruent trials | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | prime type (naturalistic sound or spoken word) | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | semantic congruency also in: semantic congruency | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | SOA also in: SOA | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Forty volunteers (10 males, mean age 22.2 years) — sample size and composition of Experiment 1 | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Thirty-six volunteers (seven males, mean age 19.7 years) — sample size and composition of Experiment 2 | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | t (19) = 2.81, p < .05 — the congruency effect for naturalistic sounds at the 350-ms SOA in Experiment 1, contrasted with a null effect at 1,000 ms | content_tags.quantities[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | t (17) = 6.18, p < .001 — the spoken-word congruency effect in the group that met the 1,000-ms SOA first, versus t (17) = 0.65 in the reverse-order group | content_tags.quantities[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | F (1, 34) = 7.50, p < .05, η p 2 = 0.18 — the naturalistic-sound congruency effect in Experiment 2, unaffected by testing order | content_tags.quantities[4] | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.