Event Abstract Back to Event Multimodal conceptual knowledge influences lexical retrieval speed: evidence from object-naming and word-reading in healthy adults Rhiannon Mackenzie-Phelan1* and Daniel J. Roberts1, 2 1 Liverpool John Moores University, School of Natural Sciences and Psychology, United Kingdom 2 Brunel University London, Department of Life Sciences, United Kingdom Getting from a concept to a spoken word relies on access to specific neural systems that support different knowledge domains (Caramazza & Mahon, 2006; Mahon & Caramazza, 2009). For example, a concept’s visual form, diagnostic colour, manner of motion, or action it may invoke. It is proposed that modality-specific knowledge converges in the anterior temporal lobes (aTLs) to form a multimodal or unique representation (Lambon Ralph et al., 2015). This knowledge can be accessed in many different ways. For example, thinking of a concept, seeing a visual image, or reading a written word. All concepts are multimodal but some are more strongly associated with sensory and functional modalities than others. Experiencing the smell of a pineapple may invoke its unique taste, visual appearance, and texture. A table, however, is not strongly associated with such rich qualities. This multimodal convergence may assist lexical retrieval, but does it facilitate processing speed? The aim of the current study was to examine if multimodal information facilitates lexical retrieval. No predictions were made; however, it was hypothesised that there would be an effect of multimodality on reaction time in object-naming and word-reading tasks. Using 160 words (Cree & McRae, 2003) rated for different modality attributes (e.g., visual, olfactory, auditory: Hoffman & Lambon Ralph, 2013) word-reading and object-naming tasks were designed. For object-naming, 143 words were substituted for corresponding line drawings; 17 were omitted because they were likely to induce coordinate semantic errors. Means were calculated for items across each attribute and categorised as low (M= 3.07, SD=.35) or high (M=4.11, SD=44) using a median split (p<.001). Tasks were administered separately via E-prime 2. Items were presented centrally for an unlimited duration following a 500ms fixation cross. Participants were seated 50cm from the screen and instructed to respond quickly and accurately. For object-naming, ANOVA revealed a significant effect of multimodality (F(1, 14)=29.68, p<.001) reflecting the fact that RTs were faster for high multimodal stimuli (high: M=1087.08; SD =228.03, low: M=935.32; SD=172.23). The same pattern was found for reading (F(1, 14)=5.24, p<.04), although the differences were much smaller (high: M=549.98; SD=89.33, low: M=527.30; SD=68.36). Results suggest a processing advantage for items with rich multimodal representations, perhaps because a wider neural network is optimised to support rapid lexical retrieval following visual input. This pattern was also observed for reading, albeit to a lesser extent. By virtue of their visual appearance, words carry fewer features that may provoke the multimodal processing advantage. This finding is consistent with the proposal that reading does not require access to semanticsv (Coltheart et al., 2001). Further analysis with a larger sample aims to establish whether particular attributes (e.g., colour) are predictive of a processing advantage in object-naming and reading. References Caramazza, A., & Mahon, B. Z. (2006). The organisation of conceptual knowledge in the brain: The future's past and some future directions. Cognitive neuropsychology, 23(1), 13-38. Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological review, 108(1), 204. Cree, G. S., & McRae, K. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(2), 163. Hoffman, P., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2013). Shapes, scents and sounds: quantifying the full multi-sensory basis of conceptual knowledge. Neuropsychologia, 51(1), 14-25. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.11.009 Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2009). Concepts and categories: A cognitive neuropsychological perspective. Annual review of psychology, 60, 27-51. Ralph, M. A. L., Jefferies, E., Patterson, K., & Rogers, T. T. (2016). The neural and computational bases of semantic cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18, 42. doi:10.1038/nrn.2016.150 Keywords: Object knowledge, Semantic Representation, multisensory processing, lexical retrieval, Conceptual representation Conference: Academy of Aphasia 56th Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada, 21 Oct - 23 Oct, 2018. Presentation Type: poster presentation Topic: Eligible for a student award Citation: Mackenzie-Phelan R and Roberts DJ (2019). Multimodal conceptual knowledge influences lexical retrieval speed: evidence from object-naming and word-reading in healthy adults. Conference Abstract: Academy of Aphasia 56th Annual Meeting. doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2018.228.00107 Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters. The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated. Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed. For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions. Received: 30 Apr 2018; Published Online: 27 Sep 2019. * Correspondence: Ms. Rhiannon Mackenzie-Phelan, Liverpool John Moores University, School of Natural Sciences and Psychology, Liverpool, United Kingdom, r.mackenziephelan@2016.ljmu.ac.uk Login Required This action requires you to be registered with Frontiers and logged in. To register or login click here. Abstract Info Abstract The Authors in Frontiers Rhiannon Mackenzie-Phelan Daniel J Roberts Google Rhiannon Mackenzie-Phelan Daniel J Roberts Google Scholar Rhiannon Mackenzie-Phelan Daniel J Roberts PubMed Rhiannon Mackenzie-Phelan Daniel J Roberts Related Article in Frontiers Google Scholar PubMed Abstract Close Back to top Javascript is disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser settings in order to see all the content on this page.