Don’t believe everything you hear: Routine validation of audiovisual information in children and adults

  • Benjamin A. Piest
  • Maj-Britt Isberner
  • Tobias Richter
Article
  • 43 Downloads

Abstract

Previous research has shown that the validation of incoming information during language comprehension is a fast, efficient, and routine process (epistemic monitoring). Previous research on this topic has focused on epistemic monitoring during reading. The present study extended this research by investigating epistemic monitoring of audiovisual information. In a Stroop-like paradigm, participants (Experiment 1: adults; Experiment 2: 10-year-old children) responded to the probe words correct and false by keypress after the presentation of auditory assertions that could be either true or false with respect to concurrently presented pictures. Results provide evidence for routine validation of audiovisual information. Moreover, the results show a stronger and more stable interference effect for children compared with adults.

Keywords

Validation Epistemic Stroop effect Epistemic monitoring Audiovisual information Language comprehension 

Notes

References

  1. Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (2007). The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 502–518.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (2009). Discourse-mediation of the mapping between language and the visual world: Eye movements and mental representation. Cognition, 111, 55–71.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.005 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1).  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
  5. Bedard, A.-C., Nichols, S., Barbosa, J. A., Schachar, R., Logan, G. D., & Tannock, R. (2002). The development of selective inhibitory control across the life span. Developmental Neuropsychology, 21, 93–111.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326942DN2101_5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bub, D. N., Masson, M. E. J., & Lalonde, C. E. (2006). Cognitive control in children: Stroop interference and suppression of word reading. Psychological Science, 17, 351–357.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01710.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Carter, C. S., Mintun, M., & Cohen, J. D. (1995). Interference and facilitation effects during selective attention: An H2150 PET study of Stroop task performance. NeuroImage, 2, 264–272.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chafé, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 26–55). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & J. S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Comalli, P. E., Wapner, S., & Werner, H. (1962). Interference effects of Stroop color-word test in childhood, adulthood, and aging. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 100, 47–51.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1962.10533572 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook, A. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (2014). Knowledge activation, integration, and validation during narrative text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 51, 26–49.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.855107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dash, J., & Dash, S. (1982). Cognitive developmental studies of the Stroop phenomena: Cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Indian Psychologist, 1, 24–33.Google Scholar
  13. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dulaney, C. L., & Rogers, W. A. (1994). Mechanisms underlying reduction in Stroop interference with practice for young and old adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 470–484.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.2.470 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellis, N. R., & Dulaney, C. L. (1991). Further evidence for cognitive inertia of persons with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 95, 613–621.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellis, N. R., Woodley-Zanthos, P., Dulaney, C. L., & Palmer, R. L. (1989). Automatic-effortful processing and cognitive inertia in persons with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 93, 412–423.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferretti, T. R., Singer, M., & Patterson, C. (2008). Electrophysiological evidence for the time-course of verifying text ideas. Cognition, 108, 881–888.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.06.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46, 577–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guttentag, R. E., & Haith, M. M. (1978). Automatic processing as a function of age and reading ability. Child Development, 49, 707–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huettig, F., Rommers, J., & Meyer, A. S. (2011). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 137, 151–171.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.11.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Isberner, M.-B., & Richter, T. (2013). Can readers ignore implausibility? Evidence for nonstrategic monitoring of event-based plausibility in language comprehension. Acta Psychologica, 142, 15–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.10.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Isberner, M.-B., & Richter, T. (2014a). Does validation during language comprehension depend on an evaluative mindset? Discourse Processes, 51, 7–25.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.855867 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Isberner, M.-B., & Richter, T. (2014b). Comprehension and validation: Separable stages of information processing? A case for epistemic monitoring in language comprehension. In D. N. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 245–276). Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Klenberg, L., Korkman, M., & Lahti-Nuuttila, P. (2001). Differential development of attention and executive functions in 3- to 12-year-old Finnish children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20, 407–428.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326942DN2001_6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Knoeferle, P., & Crocker, M. W. (2006). The coordinated interplay of scene, utterance, and world knowledge: Evidence from eye tracking. Cognitive Science, 30, 481–529.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_65 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Knoeferle, P., & Crocker, M. W. (2007). The influence of recent scene events on spoken comprehension: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 519–543.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lenth, R. V. (2016). Least-squares means: The R package lsmeans. Journal of Statistical Software, 69(1).  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v069.i01
  28. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1995). The minimalist hypothesis: Directions for research. In C. A. Weaver, S. Mannes, & C. R. Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 97–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. MacLeod, C. M., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Training and Stroop-like interference: Evidence for a continuum of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 126–135.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Mosteller, F., & Tukey, J. W. (1977). Data analysis and regression: A second course in statistics. Reading, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  31. Myers, J. L., & O’Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131–157.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Brien, E. J., & Albrecht, J. E. (1992). Comprehension strategies in the development of a mental model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 777–784.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.18.4.777 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Brien, E. J., & Cook, A. E. (2016). Coherence threshold and the continuity of processing: The RI-Val model of comprehension. Discourse Processes, 53, 326–338.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1123341 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peru, A., Faccioli, C., & Tassinari, G. (2006). Stroop effects from 3 to 10 years: The critical role of reading acquisition. Archives Italiennes de Biologie, 144, 45–62.  https://doi.org/10.4449/aib.v144i1.896 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Rand, G., Wapner, S., Werner, H., & McFarland, J. H. (1963). Age differences in performance on the Stroop Color-Word test. Journal of Personality, 31, 534–558.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1963.tb01318.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Richter, T. (2015). Validation and comprehension of text information: Two sides of the same coin. Discourse Processes, 52, 337–355.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1025665 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Richter, T., Schroeder, S., & Wöhrmann, B. (2009). You don’t have to believe everything you read: Background knowledge permits fast and efficient validation of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 538–558.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014038 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Ridderinkhof, K. R., Band, G. P. H., & Logan, G. D. (1999). A study of adaptive behavior: Effects of age and irrelevant information on the ability to inhibit one’s actions. Acta Psychologica, 101, 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schadler, M., & Thissen, D. M. (1981). The development of automatic word recognition and reading skill. Memory and Cognition, 9, 132–141.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202327 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Schiller, P. H. (1966). Developmental study of color-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 105–108.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023358 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Schroeder, S., Richter, T., & Hoever, I. (2008). Getting a picture that is both accurate and stable: Situation models and epistemic validation. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 237–255.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Singer, M. (2006). Verification of text ideas during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 574–591.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Singer, M. (2013). Validation in reading comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 361–366.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413495236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632–1634.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7777863 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Tipper, S. P., Bourque, T. A., Anderson, S. H., & Brehaut, J. C. (1989). Mechanisms of attention: A developmental study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48, 353–378.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  48. Vurpillot, E., & Ball, W. A. (1979). The concept of identity and children’s selective attention. In G. A. Hale & M. Lewis (Eds.), Attention and cognitive development (pp. 23–42). New York, NY: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wiswede, D., Koranyi, N., Müller, F., Langner, O., & Rothermund, K. (2013). Validating the truth of propositions: Behavioral and ERP indicators of truth evaluation processes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8, 647–653.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss042 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin A. Piest
    • 1
  • Maj-Britt Isberner
    • 2
  • Tobias Richter
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology IVUniversity of WürzburgWürzburgGermany
  2. 2.University of KasselKasselGermany

Personalised recommendations