Attention and the Comprehension of Subject and Object WH...
1
In Experiment 2, we added a distractor object to the animated scene -- in motion, but unconnected to the hitting action: a banana, for the apple and flower, or a ball, for the book and keys. Other changes include: elimination of the where questions. Attention and the Comprehension of Subject and Object WH-Questions Joe Hankin 1 , George Hollich 2 , Peter Jusczyk 2 , and Amanda Seidl 2 1 Brown University 2 Johns Hopkins University • To comprehend a wh-question, one needs both to understand linguistic principles and to possess a requisite level of cognitive capacity to process actions and scenes. We tested 15- and 20-month-olds’ comprehension of wh- questions to see when and in what order these abilities develop. • Experiment 1 examined when infants acquire the grammar to be able to understand subject and object wh-questions. Our principal finding was that infants could comprehend simple matrix wh-subject questions by 15 months and object by 20 months. • Experiment 2 examined the limits on this understanding by increasing the cognitive load. The results indicated that there is an attentional component to question comprehension. When three objects were moving on the screen, infants had more difficulty visually parsing and encoding the scene. This was not a memory difficulty: infants responded the same way, even when given a second chance to view the scene after hearing the question. • These results suggest that while grammatical processing of wh-questions may be fully developed at 20 months, infants’ ability to make use of that information when visually parsing a complex scene is limited. ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION PROCEDURE • Although children begin to produce questions by 20.5 months (Stromswold, 1995), comprehension of complex grammar is often found before production (Brown, 1973; Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 1996; Naigles, 1996; Shady, 1996; inter alia). • Can children younger than 2 years comprehend wh-questions? If so, what are the limitations on this comprehension? Infants were tested using the Splitscreen Preferential Looking Procedure. OR Participants: • A total of 60 infants were tested: 20 each of 20mos, 15mos, and 13mos. Trial Order: “Where is the apple?” Split screen of apple and flower Test trial5 (x2) “Where is the book?” Split screen of book and keys Test trial6 (x2) “Where is the flower?” Split screen of apple and flower Test trial7 (x2) “Where are the keys?” Split screen of book and keys Test trial8 (x2) - Apple hits flower Training trial3 (x2 “What hit the flower?” Split screen of apple and flower Test trial3 (x2) - Book hits keys Training trial4 (x2) “What did the book hit?” Split screen of book and keys Test trial4 (x2) “What hit the keys?” Split screen of book and keys Test trial2 (x2) - Book hits keys Training trial2 (x2) “What did the apple hit?” Split screen of apple and flower Test trial1 (x2) - Apple hits flower Training trial1 (x2) - Sunset Beginning Audio Video Trial RESULTS 20-month-olds looked significantly longer to the target for all three question types; the 15-month-olds for only the subject and where questions; and the 13-month- olds for none of the questions. EXPERIMENT 1 Differences between looking times to targets and non-targets -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Subject Object Where Question type Looking times (seconds) 13 months 15 months 20 months p<.05 p<.05 p<.01 p<.001 p<.001 EXPERIMENT 2 Trial Order: - Book hits keys Training trial8 (x2) “What did the book hit?” Split screen of book (or ball) and keys Test trial8 (x2) - Apple hits flower Training trial6 (x2) “What hit the flower?” Split screen of apple and flower (or banana) Test trial6 (x2) - Book hits keys Training trial4 (x2) “What hit the keys?” Split screen of book and keys (or ball) Test trial4 (x2) - Apple hits flower Training trial2 (x2 “What did the apple hit?” Split screen of apple (or banana) and flower Test trial2 (x2) - Apple hits flower Training trial5 (x2) “What hit the flower?” Split screen of apple and flower (or banana) Test trial5 (x2) - Book hits keys Training trial7 (x2) “What did the book hit?” Split screen of book (or ball) and keys Test trial7 (x2) “What hit the keys?” Split screen of book and keys (or ball) Test trial3 (x2) - Book hits keys Training trial3 (x2) “What did the apple hit?” Split screen of apple (or banana) and flower Test trial1 (x2) - Apple hits flower Training trial1 (x2) - Sunset Beginning Audio Video Trial First, the infants were shown a video of a hitting action: Then, they were shown the objects involved and asked a question: Subject-question: “What hit the apple?” Object-question: “What did the flower hit?” Where-question: “Where is the flower?” Targets were: apple, flower, book, and keys. These objects and their labels should be known by 13 months, according to the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory norms (Fenson et. al., 1994). Participants: • A total of 96 infants were tested: 48 20-month-olds and 48 15-month-olds. Half of each age group saw the target and distractor in the test trials, while the other half saw the original two objects (see above diagram). RESULTS Both the 15- and the 20- month-olds looked significantly longer to the target when presented with the choice between the target and the distractor. On the other hand, both groups looked longer to the non -target when presented with the choice they saw in Experiment 1, between the target and the active non- target. Differences in Looking Times to Targets and Non-Targets p<.05 p<.05 p<.05 p<.01 p<.01 p<.01 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Subj Dist Obj Dist Subj Orig Obj Orig Question type Looking Times (seconds) 15 months 20 months CONCLUSIONS • Experiment 1 indicated that infants’ ability to understand wh-questions increases with age, and by 20 months, infants can comprehend what questions of both subjects and objects. • Experiment 2 explored the attentional component of question comprehension. When a distractor object is added to the scene, the infants were overloaded and could not process the entire scene (Cohen, 1998; Bates & Goodman, 1997). They were able to separate the objects involved in the hitting action from the distractor, which allows them to choose the target when presented with the target and distractor. • However, the infants’ processing capabilities are limited: they cannot differentiate which of the two active objects was the actor and which was the patient. Therefore, when presented with the choice between actor and patient, they revert to looking at the object overtly mentioned in the question; in this experiment, that object is always the non-target. • Thus, even though 20-month-olds may be grammatically capable of comprehending wh-questions, limited cognitive and attentional processing prevents them from consistently demonstrating this comprehension. NICHD Grant #15795 to PWJ and an IGERT Postdoctoral Fellowship to AS. Contact Information: George J. Hollich Department of Psychological Sciences Purdue University [email protected]
Transcript of Attention and the Comprehension of Subject and Object WH...
In Experiment 2, we added a distractor object to the animated scene -- in motion, butunconnected to the hitting action: a banana, for the apple and flower, or a ball, for the bookand keys. Other changes include: elimination of the where questions.
Attention and the Comprehension of Subject and Object WH-QuestionsJoe Hankin1, George Hollich2, Peter Jusczyk2, and Amanda Seidl2
1Brown University 2Johns Hopkins University
• To comprehend a wh-question, one needs both to understand linguisticprinciples and to possess a requisite level of cognitive capacity to processactions and scenes. We tested 15- and 20-month-olds’ comprehension of wh-questions to see when and in what order these abilities develop.
• Experiment 1 examined when infants acquire the grammar to be able tounderstand subject and object wh-questions. Our principal finding was thatinfants could comprehend simple matrix wh-subject questions by 15 monthsand object by 20 months.
• Experiment 2 examined the limits on this understanding by increasing thecognitive load. The results indicated that there is an attentional component toquestion comprehension. When three objects were moving on the screen,infants had more difficulty visually parsing and encoding the scene. This wasnot a memory difficulty: infants responded the same way, even when given asecond chance to view the scene after hearing the question.
• These results suggest that while grammatical processing of wh-questions maybe fully developed at 20 months, infants’ ability to make use of thatinformation when visually parsing a complex scene is limited.
ABSTRACTABSTRACT
INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION
PROCEDUREPROCEDURE
• Although children begin to produce questions by 20.5 months (Stromswold,1995), comprehension of complex grammar is often found before production(Brown, 1973; Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 1996; Naigles, 1996; Shady, 1996;inter alia).
• Can children younger than 2 years comprehend wh-questions? If so, whatare the limitations on this comprehension?
Infants were tested using the Splitscreen Preferential Looking Procedure.
OR
Participants:• A total of 60 infants were tested: 20 each of 20mos, 15mos, and 13mos.
Trial Order:
“Where is the apple?”Split screen of apple and flowerTest trial5 (x2)“Where is the book?”Split screen of book and keysTest trial6 (x2)
“Where is the flower?”Split screen of apple and flowerTest trial7 (x2)“Where are the keys?”Split screen of book and keysTest trial8 (x2)
-Apple hits flowerTraining trial3 (x2“What hit the flower?”Split screen of apple and flowerTest trial3 (x2)
-Book hits keysTraining trial4 (x2)“What did the book hit?”Split screen of book and keysTest trial4 (x2)
“What hit the keys?”Split screen of book and keysTest trial2 (x2)-Book hits keysTraining trial2 (x2)
“What did the apple hit?”Split screen of apple and flowerTest trial1 (x2)-Apple hits flowerTraining trial1 (x2)-SunsetBeginning
AudioVideoTrial
RESULTSRESULTS
20-month-olds lookedsignificantly longer to thetarget for all three questiontypes; the 15-month-olds foronly the subject and wherequestions; and the 13-month-olds for none of the questions.
EXPERIMENT 1EXPERIMENT 1
Differences between looking timesto targets and non-targets
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Subject Object Where
Question typeLo
okin
g
tim
es
(seco
nd
s)
13 months15 months20 months
p<.05p<.05
p<.01
p<.001p<.001
EXPERIMENT 2EXPERIMENT 2
Trial Order:
-Book hits keysTraining trial8 (x2)“What did the book hit?”Split screen of book (or ball) and keysTest trial8 (x2)
-Apple hits flowerTraining trial6 (x2)“What hit the flower?”Split screen of apple and flower (or banana)Test trial6 (x2)
-Book hits keysTraining trial4 (x2)“What hit the keys?”Split screen of book and keys (or ball)Test trial4 (x2)
-Apple hits flowerTraining trial2 (x2“What did the apple hit?”Split screen of apple (or banana) and flowerTest trial2 (x2)
-Apple hits flowerTraining trial5 (x2)“What hit the flower?”Split screen of apple and flower (or banana)Test trial5 (x2)
-Book hits keysTraining trial7 (x2)“What did the book hit?”Split screen of book (or ball) and keysTest trial7 (x2)
“What hit the keys?”Split screen of book and keys (or ball)Test trial3 (x2)-Book hits keysTraining trial3 (x2)
“What did the apple hit?”Split screen of apple (or banana) and flowerTest trial1 (x2)-Apple hits flowerTraining trial1 (x2)-SunsetBeginning
AudioVideoTrial
First, the infants were shown a videoof a hitting action:
Then, they were shown the objectsinvolved and asked a question:
Subject-question: “What hit the apple?”Object-question: “What did the flower hit?”
Where-question: “Where is the flower?”
Targets were: apple, flower, book, and keys. These objects and their labels should beknown by 13 months, according to the MacArthur Communicative DevelopmentInventory norms (Fenson et. al., 1994).
Participants:• A total of 96 infants were tested: 48 20-month-olds and 48 15-month-olds. Half ofeach age group saw the target and distractor in the test trials, while the other half sawthe original two objects (see above diagram).
RESULTSRESULTS
Both the 15- and the 20-month-olds lookedsignificantly longer to thetarget when presented with thechoice between the target andthe distractor. On the otherhand, both groups lookedlonger to the non-target whenpresented with the choice theysaw in Experiment 1, betweenthe target and the active non-target.
Differences in Looking Times to Targets and Non-Targets
p<.05p<.05
p<.05
p<.01
p<.01
p<.01
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Subj Dist Obj Dist Subj Orig Obj Orig
Question type
Lo
okin
g T
imes (
seco
nd
s)
15 months
20 months
CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS
• Experiment 1 indicated that infants’ ability to understand wh-questions increaseswith age, and by 20 months, infants can comprehend what questions of bothsubjects and objects.
• Experiment 2 explored the attentional component of question comprehension.When a distractor object is added to the scene, the infants were overloaded andcould not process the entire scene (Cohen, 1998; Bates & Goodman, 1997). Theywere able to separate the objects involved in the hitting action from the distractor,which allows them to choose the target when presented with the target anddistractor.
• However, the infants’ processing capabilities are limited: they cannot differentiatewhich of the two active objects was the actor and which was the patient.Therefore, when presented with the choice between actor and patient, they revert tolooking at the object overtly mentioned in the question; in this experiment, thatobject is always the non-target.
• Thus, even though 20-month-olds may be grammatically capable ofcomprehending wh-questions, limited cognitive and attentional processing preventsthem from consistently demonstrating this comprehension.
NICHD Grant #15795 to PWJ and an IGERT Postdoctoral Fellowship to AS.
Contact Information:George J. HollichDepartment of Psychological SciencesPurdue [email protected]
