Repetition parallels in language and motor action: Evidence from tongue twisters and finger fumblers.

IF 3.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-04-27 DOI:10.1037/xge0001421
Arella E Gussow, Daniel J Weiss, Maryellen C MacDonald
{"title":"Repetition parallels in language and motor action: Evidence from tongue twisters and finger fumblers.","authors":"Arella E Gussow,&nbsp;Daniel J Weiss,&nbsp;Maryellen C MacDonald","doi":"10.1037/xge0001421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We investigated similarities in language and motor action plans by comparing errors in parallel speech and manual tasks. For the language domain, we adopted the \"tongue twister\" paradigm, while for the action domain, we developed an analogous key-pressing task, \"finger fumblers.\" Our results show that both language and action plans benefit from reusing segments of prior plans: when onsets were repeated between adjacent units in a sequence, the error rates decreased. Our results also suggest that this facilitation is most effective when the planning scope is limited, that is, when participants plan ahead only to the next immediate units in the sequence. Alternatively, when the planning scope covers a wider range of the sequence, we observe more interference from the global structure of the sequence that requires changing the order of repeated units. We point to several factors that might affect this balance between facilitation and interference in plan reuse, for both language and action planning. Our findings support similar domain-general planning principles guiding both language production and motor action. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":" ","pages":"2775-2792"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001421","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We investigated similarities in language and motor action plans by comparing errors in parallel speech and manual tasks. For the language domain, we adopted the "tongue twister" paradigm, while for the action domain, we developed an analogous key-pressing task, "finger fumblers." Our results show that both language and action plans benefit from reusing segments of prior plans: when onsets were repeated between adjacent units in a sequence, the error rates decreased. Our results also suggest that this facilitation is most effective when the planning scope is limited, that is, when participants plan ahead only to the next immediate units in the sequence. Alternatively, when the planning scope covers a wider range of the sequence, we observe more interference from the global structure of the sequence that requires changing the order of repeated units. We point to several factors that might affect this balance between facilitation and interference in plan reuse, for both language and action planning. Our findings support similar domain-general planning principles guiding both language production and motor action. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
语言和运动动作中的重复相似性:来自绕口令和手指失手的证据。
我们通过比较平行语音和手动任务中的错误,研究了语言和运动动作计划的相似性。对于语言领域,我们采用了“绕口令”范式,而对于行动领域,我们开发了一个类似的按键任务“手指摸索”。我们的结果表明,语言和行动计划都受益于重复使用先前计划的片段:当在序列中的相邻单元之间重复启动时,错误率降低。我们的研究结果还表明,当规划范围有限时,也就是说,当参与者只提前计划序列中的下一个直接单元时,这种便利是最有效的。或者,当规划范围覆盖序列的更宽范围时,我们观察到来自序列的全局结构的更多干扰,这需要改变重复单元的顺序。对于语言和行动规划,我们指出了几个可能影响计划重用中促进和干扰之间平衡的因素。我们的研究结果支持指导语言产生和运动动作的相似领域总体规划原则。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.
期刊最新文献
Bypassing versus correcting misinformation: Efficacy and fundamental processes. Risky hybrid foraging: The impact of risk, reward value, and prevalence on foraging behavior in hybrid visual search. Shortcuts to insincerity: Texting abbreviations seem insincere and not worth answering. Confidence regulates feedback processing during human probabilistic learning. Does affective processing require awareness? On the use of the Perceptual Awareness Scale in response priming research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1