Associative vocabulary learning: development and testing of two paradigms for the (re-) acquisition of action- and object-related words.
Standard
Associative vocabulary learning: development and testing of two paradigms for the (re-) acquisition of action- and object-related words. / Freundlieb, Nils; Ridder, Volker; Dobel, Christian; Enriquez-Geppert, Stefanie; Baumgaertner, Annette; Zwitserlood, Pienie; Gerloff, Christian; Hummel, Friedhelm; Liuzzi, Gianpiero.
in: PLOS ONE, Jahrgang 7, Nr. 6, 6, 01.01.2012, S. 37033.Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Associative vocabulary learning: development and testing of two paradigms for the (re-) acquisition of action- and object-related words.
AU - Freundlieb, Nils
AU - Ridder, Volker
AU - Dobel, Christian
AU - Enriquez-Geppert, Stefanie
AU - Baumgaertner, Annette
AU - Zwitserlood, Pienie
AU - Gerloff, Christian
AU - Hummel, Friedhelm
AU - Liuzzi, Gianpiero
PY - 2012/1/1
Y1 - 2012/1/1
N2 - Despite a growing number of studies, the neurophysiology of adult vocabulary acquisition is still poorly understood. One reason is that paradigms that can easily be combined with neuroscientfic methods are rare. Here, we tested the efficiency of two paradigms for vocabulary (re-) acquisition, and compared the learning of novel words for actions and objects. Cortical networks involved in adult native-language word processing are widespread, with differences postulated between words for objects and actions. Words and what they stand for are supposed to be grounded in perceptual and sensorimotor brain circuits depending on their meaning. If there are specific brain representations for different word categories, we hypothesized behavioural differences in the learning of action-related and object-related words. Paradigm A, with the learning of novel words for body-related actions spread out over a number of days, revealed fast learning of these new action words, and stable retention up to 4 weeks after training. The single-session Paradigm B employed objects and actions. Performance during acquisition did not differ between action-related and object-related words (time*word category: p?=?0.01), but the translation rate was clearly better for object-related (79%) than for action-related words (53%, p?=?0.002). Both paradigms yielded robust associative learning of novel action-related words, as previously demonstrated for object-related words. Translation success differed for action- and object-related words, which may indicate different neural mechanisms. The paradigms tested here are well suited to investigate such differences with neuroscientific means. Given the stable retention and minimal requirements for conscious effort, these learning paradigms are promising for vocabulary re-learning in brain-lesioned people. In combination with neuroimaging, neuro-stimulation or pharmacological intervention, they may well advance the understanding of language learning to optimize therapeutic strategies.
AB - Despite a growing number of studies, the neurophysiology of adult vocabulary acquisition is still poorly understood. One reason is that paradigms that can easily be combined with neuroscientfic methods are rare. Here, we tested the efficiency of two paradigms for vocabulary (re-) acquisition, and compared the learning of novel words for actions and objects. Cortical networks involved in adult native-language word processing are widespread, with differences postulated between words for objects and actions. Words and what they stand for are supposed to be grounded in perceptual and sensorimotor brain circuits depending on their meaning. If there are specific brain representations for different word categories, we hypothesized behavioural differences in the learning of action-related and object-related words. Paradigm A, with the learning of novel words for body-related actions spread out over a number of days, revealed fast learning of these new action words, and stable retention up to 4 weeks after training. The single-session Paradigm B employed objects and actions. Performance during acquisition did not differ between action-related and object-related words (time*word category: p?=?0.01), but the translation rate was clearly better for object-related (79%) than for action-related words (53%, p?=?0.002). Both paradigms yielded robust associative learning of novel action-related words, as previously demonstrated for object-related words. Translation success differed for action- and object-related words, which may indicate different neural mechanisms. The paradigms tested here are well suited to investigate such differences with neuroscientific means. Given the stable retention and minimal requirements for conscious effort, these learning paradigms are promising for vocabulary re-learning in brain-lesioned people. In combination with neuroimaging, neuro-stimulation or pharmacological intervention, they may well advance the understanding of language learning to optimize therapeutic strategies.
KW - Adult
KW - Germany
KW - Humans
KW - Male
KW - Female
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Photic Stimulation
KW - Models, Psychological
KW - Statistics, Nonparametric
KW - Analysis of Variance
KW - Reaction Time
KW - Brain/physiology
KW - Association Learning/physiology
KW - Verbal Learning/physiology
KW - Vocabulary
KW - Language Development
KW - Retention (Psychology)/physiology
KW - Adult
KW - Germany
KW - Humans
KW - Male
KW - Female
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Photic Stimulation
KW - Models, Psychological
KW - Statistics, Nonparametric
KW - Analysis of Variance
KW - Reaction Time
KW - Brain/physiology
KW - Association Learning/physiology
KW - Verbal Learning/physiology
KW - Vocabulary
KW - Language Development
KW - Retention (Psychology)/physiology
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0037033
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0037033
M3 - SCORING: Journal article
C2 - 22701562
VL - 7
SP - 37033
JO - PLOS ONE
JF - PLOS ONE
SN - 1932-6203
IS - 6
M1 - 6
ER -
