AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2642-973X /101
1 MSc Audiology.
2 MSc Speech Language Pathology.
3 Assistant Professor in Language Pathology, AIISH Mysuru.
*Corresponding Author: Abhishek BP, Assistant Professor in Language Pathology, AIISH.
Citation: Rohit Bhattacharya, Ritwik Jargar, Nethra, Mesmin Rajkumar, Abhishek BP, (2024), Lexical naming for Fusion Pictures: an Investigation across Different Age Groups, J. Brain and Neurological Disorders. 7(2): DOI: 10.31579/2642-973X /101
Copyright: © 2024, Abhishek BP. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of The Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 01 February 2024 | Accepted: 08 February 2024 | Published: 19 February 2024
Keywords: conceptual features; lexical; constraining; major and minor features
Lexical access is defined as the retrieval of the most appropriate word from the lexicon. Lexical access is assessed by employing picture naming. Naming a picture stimulus successfully depends on retrieving the conceptual features correctly. These conceptual features mature with age. The conceptual features can be constrained by employing fusion stimulus. The study aimed assess lexical naming abilities for fusion stimulus in children, younger and older adults. Naming for fusion stimulus was assessed in children between 10-13 years (group 1), and younger adults between 18-25 years (group 2) Fusion stimulus was formed by clubbing the features of two lexical items. and older adults between 55-70 years (group 3). 20 participants were considered in each group. The participants were allowed to give two responses based on the major features and minor features. The major feature was reflected through the first response while the minor feature was assumed to be reflected through the second response. Younger adults outperformed the other two groups. Children had more problems in naming fusion stimulus followed by older adults.
The lexicon of a language encompasses its vocabulary, with words assumed to encompass other words, retrieved contextually. The organization within the lexicon is elucidated through semantic fields, wherein words are grouped based on semantic similarity or contiguity relationships. Similarity involves common features like size and color, while contiguity relies on co-occurrence in a linguistic context, suggesting relatedness.
Lexical access involves retrieving the most fitting word from the lexicon, regulated by the context. Activation initiates a competition among lexical nodes, termed competitor lexical nodes, sharing common conceptual features. Among these competitors, a target lexical node is selected, followed by the activation of phonemic segments related to the target.
Researchers use diverse linguistic tasks to examine lexical-semantic processing, evaluating the organization of lexical items or the lexical access process. The mental lexicon encompasses information on words, concepts, linkages between concepts, and connections between words and pronunciation (Moerk 1981).
Non-linguistic factors influencing naming performance include picture ambiguity and the sensory-motor schema linked to word referents (Gardner, 1973). These factors impact naming latencies. In confrontation naming tasks, stimuli such as pictures, photographs, and real objects are employed, with pictures being the most common. Picture naming involves sequential steps (Wilson, Bayles & Tomoeda, 1990), including visual recognition, matching to lexicon traces, retrieval of phonemic segments, and verbalization. Naming thus involves encoding, search, and retrieval processes.
Conceptual features play a crucial role in lexical access, activating lemma nodes. Children develop naming abilities as they acquire conceptual features, with label knowledge following. Integration of conceptual features and lexical labels occurs over time, strengthening lexical access with age (Facon, Magis & Belmont, 2011). Conceptual ambiguity, a significant naming variable, relates to the presence of necessary conceptual features for picture identification. Experimental induction of conceptual ambiguity, using fusion stimuli, involves combining features from two lexical items to create a hybrid picture. Naming fusion stimuli requires identifying embedded features (major and minor). While researchers have studied conceptual features in picture naming, exploration of the relationship between conceptual features and picture identification using fusion pictures is lacking in published literature. The study rationale was naming fusion stimuli involves identifying conceptual features, major and minor features, and suppressing unrelated features amid competition from related semantic nodes.
The study aimed to investigate age-related variations in naming fusion stimuli, acknowledging a dearth of literature on this aspect. The claim that naming variation occurs with age is tested due to the sensitivity of cognitive processes enabling the identification of age.
To investigate lexical naming abilities for fusion stimuli, focusing on children, younger adults, and older adults.
Participant Details: The study included three age-based groups, labeled as Groups 1, 2, and 3. Group 1 comprised 20 participants aged 10-13 years, Group 2 included 20 participants aged 18-25 years, and Group 3 consisted of 20 participants aged 55-70 years. Each group maintained an equal distribution of both males and females. All participants were native Kannada speakers.
Stimulus Description: In total, 50 stimuli were employed, comprising 18 non-fusion stimuli and 32 fusion stimuli. Non-fusion stimuli consisted of single lexical items, while fusion stimuli involved combining two lexical items to form a single target stimulus. The fusion stimuli were sourced directly from internet repositories and included items from three lexical categories (animals, fruits, and birds). Each lexical item within a category was fused with another from the same category. For instance, a fusion stimulus might feature the facial image of a dog merged with the picture of a crow, where the crow serves as the major stimulus and the dog as the minor stimulus. Non-fusion stimuli, on the other hand, encompassed lexical items from diverse categories.
Stimulus Selection and Validation: The stimuli were not drawn from standardized materials; instead, they were chosen for convenience to facilitate the merging of major and minor features, ensuring flexibility in the process. These selected images were then shared with three Speech Language Pathologists (SLPs). A comprehensive table presenting the pictures, major features, and minor features was created and presented to the judges. The SLPs were tasked with confirming the alignment of major and minor features with the corresponding images. They were specifically asked to assess the appropriateness of the specified major and minor features. Feedback from the judges indicated that the majority of the pictures were suitable, with the exception of two instances. In response, modifications were made to the pictures to ensure alignment with the specified features.
Procedure: Participants were tasked with naming the picture for non-fusion stimuli, earning 1 point for each correct response, with a maximum score of 18. For each target item, participants provided two responses – the first corresponding to the major feature and the second to the minor feature. The instructions prompted participants to spontaneously name the first word that came to mind for each item. The researchers compared these responses to the major and minor features listed in a reference document. A score of 2 was awarded when both major and minor features were correctly named, 1 for a partially correct response (either major or minor), and 0 for inappropriate responses. The total achievable score for this task was 64.
Participants from Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 achieved mean scores of 16, 18, and 18, respectively, for the non-fusion stimulus, with the maximum attainable score being 18. Moving on to Figure 5, the scores for the non-fusion stimulus were 38, 51, and 43 for Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3, respectively, with the maximum achievable score set at 64. These numerical representations provide a snapshot of the performance levels across the three groups, showcasing variations in their responses to both fusion and non-fusion stimuli.
In the evaluation of non-fusion stimuli, Group 2 and Group 3 demonstrated equally impressive performances, reaching the maximum attainable scores. Even participants in Group 1 performed well, with the only exception being a challenge in naming a few vegetables and fruits, which slightly reduced their maximum scores.
When it came to the fusion stimulus, Group 2 participants excelled, closely followed by Group 3 and then Group 1. Notably, Group 2 participants showcased proficiency in naming both major and minor features, contributing to their high scores. Group 1 participants, while generally accurate, often provided partially correct responses, primarily focusing on the major feature and overlooking the minor one. Notably, the occurrence of no responses was more prevalent in this group. Group 3 participants, on the other hand, tended to interchange major and minor slots, with a higher incidence of no responses. Moreover, Group 3 exhibited longer overtime response durations compared to the other two groups.
In the case of Group 1, diverse responses were observed for the same stimulus. Children in this group tended to concentrate more on the face of the target (fusion item), resulting in an interchange of major and minor slots and subsequently lower scores. Both Group 1 and Group 2 participants predominantly focused on the major feature. An intriguing observation was that participants in Group 2 and Group 3 also took into account the environmental context depicted in the picture, such as land versus water when naming animals. This additional consideration likely contributed to their higher scores. Group 3 participants experienced more confusion than those in Group 2, with a higher incidence of no responses, particularly in Group 1. Maximum confusion occurred in naming fusion stimuli from the animal category, while the least confusion was observed for fruits.
To assess the potential statistically significant differences among the three groups concerning the fusion stimulus, the Kruskal-Wallis test was employed. The obtained X2 value of 3.44 indicated a significant difference. Subsequently, the Mann Whitney U test was utilized for further analysis. The Z scores obtained from the comparisons between Group 1 and Group 2, Group 2 and Group 3, and Group 1 and Group 3 were 4.55, 3.23, and 4.07, respectively. Corresponding p-values revealed a significant difference in both Group 1 and Group 3 comparisons and Group 1 and Group 2 comparisons.
In summary, the statistical analysis reveals that Group 1 (children) faced challenges in naming fusion stimuli, while Group 3 participants also encountered difficulties, albeit to a lesser extent than Group 1. This suggests that performance exhibited statistically significant variations based on age.
The study delved into the development of conceptual features over age, emphasizing their pivotal role in governing the process of lexical access. In essence, the retrieval of the appropriate word from the lexicon hinges on the accurate identification of conceptual features. The research question regarding the importance of conceptual features for naming was addressed through the strategic use of fusion stimuli in this study. Fusion stimuli, crafted by amalgamating features of two lexical items within the same categories (to prevent confusion), served as a tool to constrain conceptual features.
Children in Group 1 tended to provide more partial responses, focusing primarily on one feature in the picture. The stimulus triggered greater confusion in older participants. This underscores the dynamic nature of conceptual feature development and its impact on naming processes across different age groups.
The fusion stimulus, a unique amalgamation of two lexical items, introduces an intriguing challenge to the process of lexical access due to its inherent conceptual ambiguity. The primary aim of this study was to delve into the lexical naming abilities associated with the fusion stimulus, exploring how these abilities vary across different age groups. Our participants comprised 20 children, 20 young adults (Group 1 and Group 2), and 20 older adults (Group 3). Each participant was tasked with naming both fusion and non-fusion stimuli, with scoring based on the identification of major and minor features. Interestingly, the results revealed distinct patterns. Children encountered more difficulties in naming fusion stimuli, while older adults also faced challenges. In contrast, younger adults demonstrated a superior performance, outshining the other two groups in the naming task. These findings shed light on the nuanced dynamics of lexical naming abilities in the context of fusion stimuli, offering valuable insights into age-related variations.
The authors express their gratitude to the Director and Head of the Department of Audiology at All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, affiliated with the University of Mysore, for providing the research platform. Special thanks are extended to all the participants involved in the study.
This research did not receive dedicated funding from public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
There is no conflict of interest.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
