Processing new and repeated names: effects of coreference on repetition priming with speech and fast RSVP

Abstract

Previous research has shown that the process of establishing coreference with a repeated name can affect basic repetition priming. Specifically, repetition priming on some measures can be eliminated for repeated names that corefer with an entity that is prominent in the discourse model. However, the exact nature and timing of this modulating effect of discourse are not yet understood. Here, we present two ERP studies that further probe the nature of repeated name coreference by using naturally produced connected speech and fast-rate RSVP methods of presentation. With speech we found that repetition priming was eliminated for repeated names that coreferred with a prominent antecedent. In contrast, with fast-rate RSVP, we found a main effect of repetition that did not interact with sentence context. This indicates that the creation of a discourse model during comprehension can affect repetition priming, but the nature of this effect may depend on input speed.

Fig. 1

The effect of repetition following prominent (left panel) and non-prominent (right panel) noun phrases in Experiment 1. The ERPs are grand averages across all participants, recorded from frontal (F3, Fz, F4), central (C3, Cz, C4), and posterior (P3, Pz, P4) sites. ERPs were time locked to the critical name in the second clause (in italics).

Fig. 2

The effect of prominence for repeated names (left panel) and new names (right panel) in Experiment 1. The ERPs are grand averages across all participants, recorded from frontal (F3, Fz, F4), central (C3, Cz, C4), and posterior (P3, Pz, P4) sites. ERPs were time locked to the critical name in the second clause (in italics).

Fig. 3

The effect of repetition following prominent (left panel) and non-prominent (right panel) noun phrases in Experiment 2. The ERPs are grand averages across all participants, recorded from frontal (F3, Fz, F4), central (C3, Cz, C4), and posterior (P3, Pz, P4) sites. ERPs were time locked to the critical name in the second clause (in italics).

Fig. 4

The effect of prominence for repeated names (left panel) and new names (right panel) in Experiment 2. The ERPs are grand averages across all participants, recorded from frontal (F3, Fz, F4), central (C3, Cz, C4), and posterior (P3, Pz, P4) sites. ERPs were time locked to the critical name in the second clause (in italics).

Fig. 5

Topographic distribution of the difference waves for repeated and new names in the latency windows tested. Difference waves were created by subtracting the mean voltage of ERPs elicited by repeated names from that elicited by new names. Therefore, negative voltages in the voltage map correspond to more negativity in new name conditions. Repetition effects are shown separately for prominent and non-prominent NP1 conditions in the auditory study as sentence context interacted with repetition effects.