A series of studies is reviewed that investigated the effects of additional tasks on the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP) within the framework of an overlapping tasks paradigm. In all studies the N400 component was elicited by words that could be either synonymous or nonsynonymous to a preceding word and by subtracting the ERP to synonymous from those to non-synonymous words. Additional task stimuli were visual and could be presented at high to low temporal overlap with the words. The N400 was delayed in time when there was high temporal overlap with the additional task stimulus. The delay was more pronounced when the additional task was more difficult and more language-like. Second-language speakers showed very similar interference effects albeit at a globally slower level. Somewhat different interference effects were obtained when the meaning of the eliciting words were irrelevant to the task. In contrast, eye movements and visuo-spatial attention shifts had no effects on N400 latency. Together, the results indicate that the N400-eliciting processes — presumably the access to semantic knowledge — belong to a group of central processes that form a bottleneck in the cognitive system because they can handle only one process at a time. On the basis of these findings dual-task methodology is suggested to be a valuable tool not only for investigating the processes supporting language perception and, more generally, the retrieval of semantic knowledge but also for other language perception processes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Allen, P. A., Lien, M. C., Murphy, M. D., Sanders, R. E., Judge, K. S., & McCann, R. S. (2002). Age differences in overlapping-task performance: Evidence for efficient parallel processing in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 17, 505-519.
Caplan, D., & Waters, G. S. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 77-126.
Carrier, L. M., & Pashler, H. (1995). Attentional limits in memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 21, 1339-1348.
Cleland, A. A., Gaskell, M. G., Quinlan, P. T., & Tamminen, J. (2006). Frequency effects in spoken and visual word recognition: Evidence from dual-task methodologies. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 32, 104-119.
Coulson, S., King, J., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 21-58.
Cushing, S. (1994), Fatal Words: Communication clashes and aircraft crashes, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
De Jong, R. (1993). Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 19, 965-980.
Dietrich, R. (2002). Psycholinguistik. 1. Stuttgart, Germany: Metzler.
Dimigen, O., Schild, U., Hohlfeld, A., Berg, P. & Sommer, W. (submitted). Auditory language comprehension during saccadic eye movements: An investigation with event-related brain potentials.
Ferreira, V. S., & Pashler, H. (2002). Central bottleneck influences on the processing stages of word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 28, 1187-1199.
Fischer, R. (2005). Parallel memory retrieval in dual task situations? Unpublished Dissertation. Berlin: Humboldt-University.
Friederici, A. D., Pfeifer, E., & Hahne, A. (1993). Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research, 1, 183-192.
Gopher, D. (1986), Energetics and Resources. In G. R. J. Hockey, A. W. K. Gaillard, & M. G. H. Coles, (Eds.), Adaptation to stress and task demands. NATO Advanced Research Workshop, New York: Plenum Press.
Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (2000). ERP effects of listening to speech: semantic ERP effects. Neuropsychologia, 38, 1518-1530.
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 193-204.
Heuer, H. (1991). Motor Constraints in Dual-Task Performance. In D. L. Damos, (Ed), Multiple-Task Performance (pp. 173-204). London: Taylor & Francis.
Hirst, W., Spelke, E. S., Caharack, G., & Neisser, U. (1980). Dividing attention without alternation or automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 109, 98-117.
Hohlfeld, A., Fukuda, R., Neuper, S., Sangals, J., Sommer, W., & Straeter, O. (2004c). Task load effects on language processing: experimental approaches. In R. Dietrich & T. M. Childress (Eds.), Group interaction in high risk environments (pp. 209-240). Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Hohlfeld, A., Martín-Loeches, M., & Sommer, W. (in preparation). Semantic and syntactic processing in Spanish sentences and additional task load.
Hohlfeld, A., Mierke, K. & Sommer, W. (2004a). Is word perception in a second-language more vulnerable than in one’s native language? Evidence from brain potentials in a dual task setting. Brain & Language, 89, 569-579.
Hohlfeld, A., Sangals, J., & Sommer, W. (2004b). Effects of additional tasks on language perception: An ERP investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 1012-1025.
Hohlfeld, A., & Sommer, W. (2005). Semantic Processing of Unattended Meaning is Modulated by Additional Task Load: Evidence from Electrophysiology. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 500-512.
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Jäncke, L. (1994). Horizontal pursuit right-arm movements and dual-tasks interferences: A replication and extension, Cortex, 30, 695-700.
Kahneman, D. (1973), Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Bridging the gap: evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 196-214.
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463-470.
Kutas, M., Van Petten, C., & Kluender, R. (2006). Psycholinguistics electrified II. In M. A. Gernsbacher & M. Traxler (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (2nd ed.). New York: Elsevier Press.
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1-75.
Lien, M. C., Allen, P. A., Ruthruff, E., Grabbe, J., McCann, R. S., & Remington, R. W. (2006). Visual word recognition without central attention: Evidence for greater auto-maticity with advancing age. Psychology and Aging, 21, 431-447.
Logan, G. D., & Schulkind, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Perfor-mance, 26, 1072-1090.
Luck, S. J. (1998). Sources of dual-task interference - Evidence from human electrophysiology. Psychological Science, 9, 223-227.
Martín-Loeches, M., Nigbur, R., Casado, P., Hohlfeld, A., & Sommer, W. (2006). Semantics prevalence over syntax during sentence processing: A brain potential study of noun-adjective agreement in Spanish. Brain Research, 1093, 178-189.
McCann, R. S., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 18, 471-484.
McCann, R. S., Remington, R. W., & Van Selst, M. (2000). A dual-task investigation of automaticity in visual word processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1352-1370.
McLaughlin, J., Osterhout, L., & Kim, A. (2004). Neural correlates of second-language word learning: minimal instruction produces rapid change. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 703-704.
McLeod, P. (1977). A dual task response modality effect: Support for multiprocessor models of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 651-667.
Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. Psychological Review, 104, 749-91.
Navon, D., & Gopher, D. (1979), On the economy of the human-processing system. Psychological Reveiw, 86, 214-255.
Navon, D. A. and Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 193-251.
Neville, H. J., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Forster, K. I., & Garrett, M. F. (1991). Syntactically based processing classes: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 151-165.
Osman, A. & Moore, C. M. (1993). The locus of dual-task interference: Psychological refractory effects on movement-related brain potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 1292-1312.
Osterhout, L. & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785-806.
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-44.
Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 19-45.
Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dual task performance. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155-189). Hove: Psychology Press.
Pashler, H., Johnston, J. C., & Ruthruff, E. (2001). Attention and performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 629-651.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: Morrow.
Rabovsky, M., Alvarez, C., Hohlfeld, A., & Sommer, W., (in preparation). Effects of an additional task on visual word recognition: An ERP study.
Reynolds, M., & Besner, D. (2006). Reading aloud is not automatic: Processing capacity is required to generate a phonological code from print. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1303-1323.
Rösler, F., Streb, J., & Haan, H. (2001). Event-related brain potentials evoked by verbs and nouns in a primed lexical decision task. Psychophysiology, 38, 694-703.
Rugg, M. D., & Coles, M. G. H. (1995). Electrophysiology of mind. Event-related potentials and cognition. -220. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Sangals, J., Ross, L., & Sommer, W. (2004). Time pressure effects on information processing in overlapping tasks: Evidence from the lateralized readiness potential. Acta Psychologica, 117, 275-294.
Sangals, J., Wilwer, M., & Sommer, W. (in press). Localising practice effects in dual-task performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D. E., Lauber, E. J. & Kieras, D. E. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12, 101-8.
Schweickert, R. (1978). A critical path generalization of the additive factor method: Analysis of a Stroop task. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 18, 105-139.
Sommer, W., Leuthold, H. & Schubert, T. (2001). Multiple bottlenecks in information processing? An electrophysiological examination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 81-8.
Spelke, E. S., Hirst, W., & Neisser, U. (1976). Skills of divided attention. Cognition, 4, 215-230.
Van Petten, C., Coulson, S., Rubin, S., Plante, E., & Parks, M. (1999). Time course of word identification and semantic integration in spoken language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 394-417.
Welford, A. T. (1952). The “Psychological refractory period” and the timing of high speed performance - A review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology, 43, 2-19.
Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman, R. Davies & J. Beatty (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63-102). New York: Academic Press.
Wiese, H. (2004). Semantics as a gateway to language. In H. Härtl & H. Tappe (Eds.), Mediating between concepts and language (Trends in linguistics 152, pp. 197-222). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sommer, W., Hohlfeld, A. (2008). Overlapping Tasks Methodology as a Tool for Investigating Language Perception. In: Breznitz, Z. (eds) Brain Research in Language. Literacy Studies, vol 1. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74980-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74980-8_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-74979-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-74980-8
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)