1. Introduction Method Experiment 2 In spoken word recognition, phonological and indexical properties (i.e., characteristics of the speaker’s voice) of a word are encoded and stored in long-term memory (Pisoni, 1993). Repeating aloud words at study, when contrasted with listening, mouthing, or whispering, improves recall and recognition in a within- subjects design (production effect Macleod, et al., 2010). Listening to a foreign accent attenuates the production effect— listening to a foreign vs. a native accented word is more memorable but there is no additive benefit with repetition (Cho & Feldman, 2013). Imitating foreign-accented sentences helps listeners better understand new accented sentences relative to listening, repeating, or transcribing (Adank et al., 2010). Mouse-tracking measures can be used to view participants cognitions as they unfold over time (Freeman & Ambady, 2010; Spivey et al., 2005). Why does repeating a foreign accented word attenuate the benefit of production relative to a native pronunciation? Phonetic loss account: Indexical information associated with the speaker is lost when participants repeat aloud a foreign-accented word. Overshadowing account: Indexical information is not lost when repeating a foreign-accented word, but it is not relevant when a more discriminatory memory cue is available (i.e., repetition). Introduce a source-monitoring recognition memory test to adjudicate between accounts. Does production of accented words by imitation and by repeating aloud (and by listening) at study reveal differences in a recognition memory task? Mouse-tracking measures allows for the assessment of participant’s response trajectory as they indicate their response. Experiments 1A & 1B Design: 2 (Accent: American-English, Chinese) × 2 (Study Action: Repeat Aloud, Listen); within-participants Subjects: Native-English speakers Materials: 40 mono-/disyllabic Chinese-accented English target words articulated by a native English Speaker or Chinese national Final Memory Test Experiment 1A: yes-no visual recognition test (40 unrelated lures matched with the target on length, frequency, and phonological and orthographic neighborhood) Experiment 1B: source monitoring auditory + visual recognition test ½ targets spoken by same speaker as during study; ½ targets spoken by different speaker (than as during study Experiment 2 Design: Study Action (Listen vs. Repeat Aloud vs. Imitate); between- participants Subjects: Native-English speakers Materials:40 (+4 fillers) mono-/disyllabic Dutch-accented English target words articulated by a native English speaker or native Dutch speaker Final Final Memory Test: 2-Alternative Visual Forced-Choice Each target paired with a phonologically similar lure that overlapped with the target on its initial phoneme (e.g., maid vs. mate) Self-reported confidence (1-5) collected for each trial. Data collected using MouseTracker software (Freeman & Ambady, 2010) Research Questions + 500 ms 1000 ms MAID “MAID” 1500 ms Dutch-accented Presentation Study task Visual feedback of target Procedure Note: Data for initiation time, MD, and AUC, RT taken from correct trials only. Within each column, means that are significantly different from each other in LME with ss and word as random effects do not share superscript letters. Acknowledgements: Janet Van Hell and Mirjam Ernestus helped to develop the accented materials. The research reported here was supported by funds from the National Institute Of Child Health and Development Grant HD-01994 to Haskins Laboratories and by funds from the Dutch Academy of Sciences LF. Articulatory and Phonological Codes Interact in Memory Kit Cho 1, Drew Abney 2, Rachel Brotman 1, Laurie Beth Feldman 13 1 The University at Albany, State University of New York; 2 University of California, Merced; 3 Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, CT 36th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Quebec City, Canada Condition% ErrorLog RT (ms) Init Mov’t (ms) MDMD Time AUCMax Vel time step Confidence Listen.19 a 7.45 a (.05)229 a (27).40 a (.06)1081 a (62).99 a (.18).25 a (.01)59.10 b (2.3)4.02 a (.14) Repeat Aloud.13 b 7.53 b (.05)161 a (20).51 a (.06) 994 a (48)1.25 a (.21).23 a (.01)51.52 b (1.8)3.98 a (.13) Imitate.20 a 7.53 c (.04)254 b (27).32 b (.06)1131 b (57).81 a (.17).23 b (.01)57.01 a (2.0)3.59 b (.14) Contact Information: lfeldman@albany.edu Procedure Study Phase: Test Phase: Results 1500 ms2000 ms 1500 ms2000 ms “COAT” CUE for action on next trial OR Auditory presentation of target Visual feedback About target COAT COAT or DROP (LURE) studied or non- studied? Experiment 1A “COAT” Experiment 1B “COAT” Speaker A or Speaker B? Action Experiment 1A: Yes-no Recognition Test Experiment 1B: Source Monitoring Recognition Test Same SpeakerDifferent Speaker error bar: 1 SEM Accent: Chinese > American-English Action: Repeat Aloud > Listen (production effect) Interaction Effect: No differences between Accent when words are repeated aloud; Chinese-accented words remembered better when words were listened to. Listening to an unfamiliar accent attenuates the production effect Speaker: Same Speaker > Different Speaker Action: Repeat Aloud > Listen (production effect) Accent: Chinese > American-English No Accent ×Action interaction Phonetic detail of input is preserved at recognition with repetition. Interaction of Speaker ×Action: Same speaker at study and test improved memory more when words were repeated aloud than when listened to. Different speaker at test curtails performance overall. No other significant interactions Results Mouse Tracking: Position Imitation of the target accent during study resulted in a more direct path (i.e., smallest and later MD) to the target than did repeat in the recognition test. General Discussion Mouse Tracking: Velocity Experiment 1: Phonetically unfamiliar (accented) words attenuate the production effect but phonetic detail is not lost. Repeating from an unfamiliar accent may overshadow the mnemonic benefits (phonetic distinctiveness) of listening to unfamiliarly accented words in some but not all memory tasks. Experiment 2: Imitation impairs recognition relative to natural repetition. Imitation leads to more cautious and slower responding but performance is not necessarily more accurate memory than repetition. Perception of the phonetics of accented speech with and without imitation at articulation alters response movement dynamics in a recognition task.. Overall, study condition was more impt in the first half of the trial (i.e., steps 1-50) than in the second half of the trial (i.e., steps 51-100). Imitation of the target accent during study resulted in slower mouse movements, lower max velocity and later relative max velocity relative to repeating the target aloud (normalized) Experiments 1A and 1B Imitate was less accurate and slower than Repeat and often than Listen. Imitate was less confident than Listen or Repeat. Repetition helps overall accuracy and early movement. Mean (Standard Error) for the 2-Alternative Forced-Choice Recognition Test