Dear all,

Here's one more bid at the great RG force.

I am using Pecher et al.'s (2003) Conceptual Modality Switch paradigm in a psycholinguistic experiment, and I've run into a question for which I would really appreciate your help. 

For clarification, a modality switch is a change in perceptual meaning from one stimulus to the next; for instance, from the words 'sour lemon' to 'red flag,' that is, from taste to vision. This change, compared to a transition within the same modality, has been shown to incur processing costs (longer responses) as well brain signals of harder comprehension (N400 event-related potential). 

Traditionally, the second word presented (whether noun or adjective) has been the point of measure, both for RTs and ERPs. Yet, could it be better to measure at the first word? 

Theoretically, it should be beneficial because any modality shift from one trial to the next should arise at the first rather than the second word of the second trial, as there is greater novelty there. Now, the criticism I have already garnered against a first-word measure argues that any perceptual content will only be strong enough after two consistent instances of a given modality, and so the measure has to be taken afterwards. How do you see it?

There are several perks to measuring at the first word. First, the effect can be tracked from its start through all stages in the time course of word processing. Second, it would cancel confound influence. The participants' task in modality-switch experiments is usually to judge the relationship between a property and a concept, whether true (sour / lemon), or false (sweet / lemon). In this sense, measuring at the first word would cancel confound influence on the N400 from the mere relationship between each noun and adjective. In contrast, the second word takes that in as participants start to ponder the relationship between the two words. Third, measuring at the first word solves the issue of response artifacts in the EEG, as responses are only taken after the second word. Therefore it allows better for a fast-response task, as no artifact-shield (a 1-second pause) is required after the second word.

Thank you in advance for any ideas, based on literature or your experience. Best regards,

Pablo

.........................................

Most relevant references:

Collins, J., Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Coulson, S. (2011). Modality Switching in a Property Verification Task: An ERP Study of What Happens When Candles Flicker after High Heels Click. Frontiers in Psychology, 2.

Hald, L. A., Marshall, J.-A., Janssen, D. P., & Garnham, A. (2011). Switching Modalities in A Sentence Verification Task: ERP Evidence for Embodied Language Processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 2.

Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 2, 558-564.

Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science, 14, 2, 119-24.

Solomon, K. O., & Barsalou, L. W. (2004). Perceptual simulation in property verification. Memory & Cognition, 32, 244-259.

Van Dantzig, S., Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Perceptual Processing Affects Conceptual Processing. Cognitive Science, 32, 579-590.

Conference Paper Modality switch effects emerge early and increase throughout...

Similar questions and discussions