| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Bjernestedt, Amanda, et al.
(författare)
-
Pupil dilation reflects interference during memory retrieval
- 2016
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- We demonstrate that pupillometry can be used to track memory interference independent of explicit responses. Pupil diameter was recordedthroughout encoding and retrieval of words from the same category over 4 trials, causing buildup of proactive interference (PI). In a contrastingcondition, the category was switched on the 4th trial, causing release from interference (RI). Pupil dilation systematically increased for bothconditions as interference built up and retrieval performance declined. Critically, in trial 4 the RI condition resulted in improved retrievalperformance, with significantly smaller pupil dilation than in the PI condition, where performance continued to decline. Principal component analysisrevealed an early dilation peak possibly related to control of interference, and a later component possibly linked to memory search.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Gullberg, Kajsa, et al.
(författare)
-
In scriptura veritas: ett metodologiskt förslag för att jämföra att skriva och att tala för forensiska ändamål
- 2024
-
Konferensbidrag (populärvet., debatt m.m.)abstract
- Can language production processes in writing and speaking facilitate identification of fabrications? If so, are fabrications easier to detect in the written modality compared to the spoken modality? The aim of this study is to examine how language production processes manifest across truthful and fabricated narrative accounts of witnessed events. Specifically, the study asks if and how differences and similarities are manifested across written and spoken modalities, and if/how these differences/similarities can be analyzed within and across modalities. Linguistic processes in written and spoken language production are subject to working memory constraints (Goldman Eisler, 1970; McCutchen, 1996), and this can be seen in for example increased pause duration, frequency, and other disfluencies (Heldner & Edlund, 2010; Matsuhashi, 1981). It has also been found that lying leads to increased cognitive load (Williams, Bott, Patrick, & Lewis, 2013), leading to the hypothesis that fabrication would be visible in the production patterns in both modalities. Due to the synchronous nature of speaking, where the production process is overt, compared to the asynchronous nature of writing, where the process is covert, another hypothesis is that it will be easier to detect fabrication during writing.Two truthful and two fabricated narratives (whereof two spoken and two written) from a corpus of written and spoken narratives were used to qualitatively examine how pauses and disfluencies manifest in the two conditions across modalities. Written data consisted of a keystroke logging file and spoken as an audio file and transcription. Cognitive load was analyzed through text length, pause analyses and revisions (in writing) and reformulations (in speaking). The results show that, taking the difference in production speed across modalities into consideration, cognitive load can meaningfully be operationalized as pause frequency in relation to text length. Further, when measuring text length, the number of written/transcribed charactersis proposed as a way of measuring this while taking repetitions (in speaking) and fragments (in writing) into consideration. In conclusion, the study suggests that comparable results in the modalities can be reached by making informed analytical choices.
|
|
| 7. |
- Gullberg, Kajsa, et al.
(författare)
-
Using keystroke logging to explore differences in written language production processes between self-experienced and invented narrative accounts : A forensic linguistic approach
- 2024
-
Konferensbidrag (populärvet., debatt m.m.)abstract
- This study aims at investigating if/how writing processes, such as planning and revision, differ between accounts of self-experienced and invented narratives. The underlying assumption is that cognitive load will increase for the writer when s/he is is changing or inventing parts of an otherwise self-experienced series of events. This builds on theories of how limited working memory capacity leads to increased pausing behavior in accordance with increased cognitive demands (Kellogg, 1996; McCutchen 2000), and that the need for revisions will increase when the writer wants to meet the goal of convincing the reader that something is true (cf. the relation between planning, translating and revision described in e.g. the writing model of Hayes and Flower, 1980). This presentation primarily focusses on comparing written accounts, collected with an experimental design. Participants (n=45) were presented with 4 elicitation videos, depicting misdemeanors (e.g., cheating on an exam, stealing a bike). Each participant performed 4 accounts across the 4 films: two written, and two spoken. For one account in each modality the participant is asked to lie and alter “who did it”. Modality, films and invented/self-experienced accounts are balanced for order. The written data was collected online through keystroke logging (ScriptLog). The participants repeated the experiment 4 times with 2 weeks apart, to allow for comparisons of consecutive accounts of both invented and self-experienced narratives. The first results showed no differences between time on task between invented and self-experienced narratives, but the invented narratives required overall more pause time. In addition, time on task and overall pause time decreased over the consecutive accounts, indicating that the retelling task became easier independent of condition. There were no overall differences in the amounts of deleted text between the conditions, but during the writing of the invented narratives, less characters were written between pauses, indicating theneed to pause (and plan?) more often. The general picture is that there are many individual differences, and that individual baselines may need to be established, as well as including comparisons within subjects in the further explorations of the data. Continuing analyses will look more closer at the linguistic contexts where the writers need to pause and revise, and will also compare the written accounts to spoken equivalents. The overall picture is however that using keystroke logging to investigate “true” and “false” narratives may be a rewarding avenue for forensic linguistics, and could be used (in addition to other tools) to identify instances where information needs to be further investigated.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
