Chapter 2 Literature Review
3.3 Results
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
For statistical analysis, the mean fixation proportions of each type of character in
the visual display across two experimental conditions were computed during each
100-msec interval time bin. The result of analyses of variance (ANOVA) by
participants (F1) and items (F2) for each time bin in the 1-1000-msec range from the
acoustic target onset were reported.
3.3 Results
The mean of reaction time and correct hits on matching the acoustic target character
to the character in visual display were computed for each participant. Mean reaction
time for response was 1466.4 msec (SD = 526.9) and mean accuracy rate was 98 %
(Max = 100%, Min = 95%).
Figure 7 plots the fixation proportions of target, competitor, and unrelated distractor
for every millisecond from 200 msec, the time when visual display showing to the
target acoustic onset 0 msec until 1000 msec after acoustic target onset in tonal and
segmental conditions. The time when the target diverged from the tonal competitor
was before the average duration (703msec) of the auditory stimuli. This result
suggests that tone affects on-line lexical processing before the ending of the spoken
character. Starting from about 301msec, segmental competitor attracted more
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
fixations than the unrelated distractors. However, there was no significant difference
between the tonal competitor and unrelated distractors. Furthermore, the time when
the curve of target diverged from tonal competitor was earlier than when that of target
diverged from segmental competitor about 200msec. In addition, as illustrated in
Figure 7, the fixation proportion of segmental competitor was higher than that of tonal
competitor.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Figure 7. Fixation proportions to targets, competitors, and unrelated distractors for trials with tonal or segmental competitors in Experiment 1. The x-axis shows time in milliseconds from visual display onset, 200 msec before target acoustic onset, for the 1200 msec period.
We performed the analyses of variance (ANOVAs) by participants (F1) and items
(F2) for the fixation proportions in time bins of 100 msec, starting from the onset of
acoustic target for 1000 msec in tonal and segmental condition (Table 3). As Table 3
illustrated, for the tonal condition, the differences among target, competitor, and
distractor were significant during 401 msec to 1000 msec. As for the segmental
condition, the differences among target, competitor, and distractor were significant
during 301 msec to 1000 msec.
Table 3. Analyses of variance by participant and item comparing mean fixation
‧
proportions to tonal and segmental competitors with those of the target and unrelated distractors from 1 msec to 1000 msec after acoustic target onset in Experiment 1
The mean fixation proportions to target, competitor, and the unrelated distractors
and standard errors were shown in Figure 8. For each time bin, a one-way ANOVA
was performed for trials with tonal or segmental competitors and their targets and
distractors, followed by the post-hoc comparisons (Table 4). The post-hoc
comparisons indicated no significant difference between the tonal competitor and
unrelated distractors in the 1000 msec duration. The fixation proportion curves of the
tonal competitor and the unrelated distractor were similar. As for segmental condition,
the mean fixation proportions to the competitor and the unrelated distractors were
significantly different during 301-1000-msec.
The mean fixation proportions to tonal competitor and target was significantly
different by participants and by item during 401-1000-msec. The mean fixation
proportions to segmental competitor and target were significantly different in both the
by participants and by item analyses during 601-1000 msec.
Condition Test 1-100 101-200 201-300 301-400 401-500 501-600 601-700 701-800 801-900 901-1000 F1(2,62) 0.30 0.54 0.20 1.04 50.21 106.20 217.40 318.00 371.50 550.10
p 0.743 0.587 0.823 0.361 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 F2(2,54) 0.18 0.23 0.09 0.98 29.39 89.72 150.40 263.40 539.70 718.10
p 0.838 0.797 0.911 0.383 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 F1(2,62) 0.24 0.16 0.13 8.49 35.31 51.58 75.70 131.60 180.30 242.20
p 0.787 0.852 0.879 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 F2(2,54) 0.20 0.13 0.12 8.07 18.84 18.38 21.42 31.93 48.94 90.44 p 0.823 0.879 0.887 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Note: F 1 = 32 participants, F 2 = 28 items
Time bin (ms)
Tonal
Segmental
‧
Figure 8. Mean fixation proportions to targets, competitors, and unrelated distractors for tonal and segmental conditions in the 1,000 msec period following acoustic target onset in Experiment 1. Each data point represents the average of fixation proportions across participants in the time bin of 100 msec and the error bars show the standard
1-100
Fixation proportions (Mean +/- 1 SE)
Tonal Competitor
TAR 7.98% 11.36 13.55 17.46 21.09 27.54 36.01 42.34 50.24 57.87 SC 7.28% 11.28 13.14 18.04 23.59 25.85 23.58 22.07 18.36 14.88 UR 7.78% 11.99 12.83 11.46 10.42 10.01 10.08 9.60% 9.15% 8.78%0%
Fixation proportions (Mean +/- 1 SE)
Segmental Competitor
‧
Table 4. Analyses of variance by participant and item comparing mean fixation proportions to competitors with those of the target and unrelated distractors from 1 msec to 1000 msec after acoustic target onset in Experiment 1
For segmental condition, the mean fixation proportions to segmental competitor
and target were significantly different by participants analyses on 601-700-msec in
Tone 1, Tone 2, and Tone 4 [Tone 1:z1= 4.49, p < .001; Tone 2:z1 = 4.12, < .001;
Tone 4:z1= 2.76, p = .017]. However, in the time period 601-700-msec, there was no
significant difference by participants analyses between the segmental competitor and
target in Tone 3. The late time of divergence between the target and the segmental
competitor in Tone 3 suggests that tonal information might influence the on-line
lexical processing. Additionally, this result was consistent to the result of Lai and
Zhang (2008) suggesting that Tone 3 had the latest isolation point for the size of the
1 The calculation of mean fixation proportions in each time bin included the area of target, competitor, unrelated distractors, cross , and the remaining areas outside the above-mentioned areas in the visual display
Condition Test 1-100 101-200 201-300 301-400 401-500 501-600 601-700 701-800 801-900 901-1000
TAR - TC z1 -0.72 -0.98 -0.64 1.18 9.00 12.80 18.24 22.44 24.08 29.20
p =1 p =.976 p =1 p =.713 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001
z2 -0.56 -0.64 -0.44 1.15 6.90 11.79 15.21 20.47 29.09 33.44
p =1 p =1 p =1 p =.750 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
segments needed to correctly identify the stimulus without further changes in the
gating paradigm.
For tonal condition, the mean fixation proportions to tonal competitor and target
was significantly different by participants analyses on 401~500msec in Tone 1, Tone 2,
Tone 3, and Tone 4 [Tone 1:z1 =4.24, p < .001; Tone 2:z1 = 4.54, p < .001; Tone 3: z1
=3.88, p < .001; Tone 4:z1 = 3.97, p < .001].
There was no significant difference of the time of divergence between the tonal
competitor and the unrelated distractors among four tones. However, the mean
fixation proportions to the segmental competitor and unrelated distractors was
significantly different by participants analyses on 301-400-msec in Tone 2 and Tone 4
[Tone 2: z1 = 2.84, p = .014; Tone 4: z1 = 2.76, p = .018]. There was no significant
difference by participants analyses on 301-400-msec in Tone 1 and Tone 3.
Figure 9 plots the fixation proportion over time in two conditions among four tones.
Table 5 shows the time period when mean fixation proportion had significant
difference by participants analysis between competitor and its target and unrelated
distractors in two conditions of Experiment 1.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Figure 9. Mean fixation proportions to targets, competitors, and unrelated distractors for tonal and segmental conditions in the 1,000 msec period following acoustic target onset in Experiment 1. Each data point represents the average of fixation proportions across participants in the time bin of 100 msec and the error bars show the standard error of the data. Fixation proportions to target, competitors and unrelated distractors over time for 4 tones are shown respectively.
Table 5. The time period when mean fixation proportion had significant difference between TAR-TC, TAR-SC, TC-UR and SC-UR by participants in Experiment 1
Experiment 1
TAR-TC TAR-SC TC-UR SC-UR
All 401-1000 601-1000 -- 301-1000
Tone 1 401-1000 601-1000 -- 401-800
Tone 2 401-1000 601-1000 -- 301-800
Tone 3 401-1000 701-1000 -- 401-900
Tone 4 401-1000 601-1000 -- 301-700 Note. – no significant differences
‧
國立 政 治 大 學