Publications

Abstract

The cognate effect refers to translation equivalents with similar form between languages—i.e., cognates, such as “band” (English) and “banda” (Spanish)—being processed faster than words with dissimilar forms—such as, “cloud” and “nube.” Substantive literature supports this claim, but is mostly based on orthographic similarity and tested in the visual modality. In a previous study, we found an inhibitory orthographic similarity effect in the auditory modality—i.e., greater orthographic similarity led to slower response times and reduced accuracy. The aim of the present study is to explain this effect. In doing so, we explore the role of the speaker's accent in auditory word recognition and whether native accents lead to a mismatch between the participants' phonological representation and the stimulus. Participants carried out a lexical decision task and a typing task in which they spelled out the word they heard. Words were produced by two speakers: one with a native English accent (Standard American) and the other with a non-native accent matching that of the participants (native Spanish speaker from Spain). We manipulated orthographic and phonological similarity orthogonally and found that accent did have some effect on both response time and accuracy as well as modulating the effects of similarity. Overall, the non-native accent improved performance, but it did not fully explain why high orthographic similarity items show an inhibitory effect in the auditory modality. Theoretical implications and future directions are discussed.

Abstract

The information we obtain from how speakers sound—for example their accent—affects how we interpret the messages they convey. A clear example is foreign accented speech, where reduced intelligibility and speaker's social categorization (out-group member) affect memory and the credibility of the message (e.g., less trustworthiness). In the present study, we go one step further and ask whether evaluations of messages are also affected by regional accents—accents from a different region than the listener. In the current study, we report results from three experiments on immediate memory recognition and immediate credibility assessments as well as the illusory truth effect. These revealed no differences between messages conveyed in local—from the same region as the participant—and regional accents—from native speakers of a different country than the participants. Our results suggest that when the accent of a speaker has high intelligibility, social categorization by accent does not seem to negatively affect how we treat the speakers' messages.

Abstract

The information we obtain from how speakers sound—for example their accent—affects how we interpret the
messages they convey. A clear example is foreign accented speech, where reduced intelligibility and speaker's
social categorization (out-group member) affect memory and the credibility of the message (e.g., less trust-
worthiness). In the present study, we go one step further and ask whether evaluations of messages are also
affected by regional accents—accents from a different region than the listener. In the current study, we report
results from three experiments on immediate memory recognition and immediate credibility assessments as well
as the illusory truth effect. These revealed no differences between messages conveyed in local—from the same
region as the participant—and regional accents—from native speakers of a different country than the partici-
pants. Our results suggest that when the accent of a speaker has high intelligibility, social categorization by
accent does not seem to negatively affect how we treat the speakers' messages.

Abstract

he current study examined the interaction of fearful, angry,
happy, and neutral expressions with left, straight, and
right eye gaze directions. Human participants viewed
faces consisting of various expression and eye gaze
combinations while event-related potential (ERP) data
were collected. The results showed that angry expressions
modulated the mean amplitude of the P1, whereas fearful
and happy expressions modulated the mean amplitude of
the N170. No influence of eye gaze on mean amplitudes for
the P1 and N170 emerged. Fearful, angry, and happy
expressions began to interact with eye gaze to influence
mean amplitudes in the time window of 200–400 ms.
The results suggest early processing of expression
influence ERPs independent of eye gaze, whereas
expression and gaze interact to influence later
ERPs.