1. Language is for Labels:
Culturally Induced Cognitive Facilitation

2. Labels help categorization in non-human primates.
Leopard: short , tonal
Eagle: low pitch
Python: high pitch
Acoustically distinct alarm call allow vervet monkeys to effectively categorize predators.
Distinct responses require semantic knowledge of predator categories.
(Seyfarth, Cheney, and Marler, 1980)

3. Wild chimpanzees also communicate using meaningful calls.
Observations of chimps in West Africa.
Chimps use different barks for different contexts and can even combine signals.
Calls signal more than just nearby predators.
Calls aid in hunting and traveling
(Crockford and Boesch, 2003)

4. Semantic processing can begin as early as 12 months old.
N400 is a negative brain wave that reflects semantic processing.
Semantic priming leads to a reduced N400.
High comprehension 12 month olds show semantic priming effect in N400.
Comprehended words elicit bilateral activity whereas words that are not comprehended elicit right lateralized activity.
(Friedrich and Friederici, 2010)

5. Children require more brain activity for language comprehension.
Dorsal path: acruate fasciculus (AF)
Ventral path: extreme capsule fiber system (ECFS)
Children rely on dorsal (AF) and ventral pathways (ECFS) for language.
Adults only use the dorsal path (AF).
(Brauer, Anwander, and Friederici, 2011)

6. Processing semantic information occurs in the frontal lobe.
Semantic encoding leads to greater activation of the left inferior frontal lobe (BA 45, 46, and 47) than does perceptual encoding.
The semantic encoding group recalled significantly more words than the perceptual encoding group, t(15) = 7.49, p <
Activity increases as the need for semantic information increases.
(Gabrieli et al., 1996)

7. Neuronal activity impacts categorization.
Transcranial direct current stimulation(tDCS) was applied to the left prefrontal cortex.
Anodal stimulation (increases cortical excitability) increased the selection of more marginal category members.
Cathodal (decreases cortical excitability) stimulation reduced the selection of more marginal category members.
(Lupyan, Mirman, Hamilton, and Tompson-Schill, 2012)

8. Nonsense labels facilitate novel learning.
Participants had to choose to approach or avoid the aliens.
Nonsense labels were “leebish” and “grecious”.
Test performance
label: M = .93, SD = .04
No label: M = .87, SD = .10
Label group reached 80% accuracy in 30 trials
No label group reached 80% accuracy in 72 trials
No difference between verbal and auditory labels.
No difference between location and no label.
(Lupyan, Rakison, and McClelland, 2007)

9. Color discrimination can be learned.
Discrimination of hue and lightness increased throughout training.
Discrimination was best for category learners across different categories.
Discrimination was poorest for the control group across categories.
(Ozgen and Davies, 2002)

10. Label-Feedback Hypothesis
Labels activate features that are diagnostic of the category being labeled. Features that don’t match the category push representations of the object away from the category.
Labeling an object a triangle increases reaction time for untypical triangles.
Labels can alter the perception of an angle.
Labeling an object a triangle exaggerates the difference from horizontal.
(Lupyan 2012)

11. Categorization using language alters unconscious perception.
Greek and English speakers were told to push a button when they saw a square.
light blue: ghalazio; dark blue: ble
ERPs revealed greater distinction for blue than for green in Greek participants.
No such distinction was observed in English speakers.
Observed differences occurred as early as 100 ms, when perceptual information is still in early stages of visual processing.
First study to show a relationship between native language and unconscious color discrimination.
(Guillaume, Athanasopoulos, Wiggett, Dering, and Kuipers, 2009)
P1 wave and vMMN both showed the distinction for blue (P1 smaller amplitude, vMMN larger amplitude) but not green in Greeks (not shown in English speakers).

12. Auditory cues increase perceptual sensitivity.
Brief visual cues did not facilitate performance.
Only valid cues enhanced perceptual sensitivity.
Letters that were otherwise invisible to participants became visible with valid auditory cues.
Cues predicted letter identity, not letter presence.
(Lupyan and Spivey, 2010)

13. Labels increase performance and hasten decisions.
Participants had to respond match or mismatch
Verbal labels led to greater accuracy and shorter reaction times compared to characteristic sounds (e.g., a hearing a cow mooing)
Invalid cues caused an increase in reaction time.
(Lupyan and Tompson-Schill, 2012)

14. Summary Non-human primates have distinct auditory labels with meaning.
Semantic knowledge begins as early as one year of age.
Labels facilitate novel learning.
Perception can be learned and it is enhanced by using labels.
Verbal labels reduce reaction time and increase accuracy compared to nonverbal sounds.
Conclusion: Labeling your environment facilitates meaningful communication and enhances visual perception.
Does cognitive facilitation via language make humans smarter than other animals?

15. References