» Articles » PMID: 35668981

Attentional Competition and Semantic Integration in Low- and High-Span Readers

Overview
Journal Front Psychol
Date 2022 Jun 7
PMID 35668981
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The goal of the current study is to investigate the effects of the distractive textual information on the activation of predictive inference online, and how the readers with high or low working memory capacity (WMC) differ in their online activation and text memory. To test the two hypothesis of attentional competition (AC) and semantic integration (SI), we conducted three experiments to investigate whether a local prediction (e.g., "The vase broke") and a global prediction (e.g., "The wife left her husband"), both of which could be derived from the description of a critical event (e.g., "The angry husband throws the delicate porcelain vase against the brick wall"), are generated in the mind of the reader, and how this generation process is influenced by contextual and cognitive factors of the reader (e.g., working memory capacity). The results of Experiment 1 and 2 suggest that the elaboration of the global aspects in the narrative reduces the local prediction, but makes the global prediction more salient to occur. The evidence from Experiment 3 confirms the hypothesis that even automatic processes are constrained by distant contextual factors, in combination with differences in working memory, and examines how referentially local and global predictions are intertwined in text comprehension. Overall, these data support the immediate integration hypothesis across sentence boundaries at different representation levels (cf. Schmalhofer and Perfetti, 2007), as well as interaction assumptions of different processing levels within referentially local and referentially global processing contexts (cf. Yang et al., 2005).

References
1.
Unsworth N, Engle R . The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory. Psychol Rev. 2007; 114(1):104-32. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.104. View

2.
McKoon G, Ratcliff R . Semantic associations and elaborative inference. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1989; 15(2):326-38. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.15.2.326. View

3.
Lemoine H, Levy B, Hutchinson A . Increasing the naming speed of poor readers: representations formed across repetitions. J Exp Child Psychol. 1993; 55(3):297-328. DOI: 10.1006/jecp.1993.1018. View

4.
Dehaene S, Naccache L . Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness: basic evidence and a workspace framework. Cognition. 2001; 79(1-2):1-37. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00123-2. View

5.
De Neys W, Schaeken W, dYdewalle G . Inference suppression and semantic memory retrieval: every counterexample counts. Mem Cognit. 2003; 31(4):581-95. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196099. View