Editing Psycholinguistics (section)

==Methodologies==

===Behavioral tasks===
Many of the experiments conducted in psycholinguistics, especially early on, are behavioral in nature. In these types of studies, subjects are presented with linguistic stimuli and asked to respond. For example, they may be asked to make a judgment about a word ([[lexical decision task|lexical decision]]), reproduce the stimulus, or say a visually presented word aloud. Reaction times to respond to the stimuli (usually on the order of milliseconds) and proportion of correct responses are the most often employed measures of performance in behavioral tasks. Such experiments often take advantage of [[priming (psychology)|priming effects]], whereby a "priming" word or phrase appearing in the experiment can speed up the lexical decision for a related "target" word later.<ref name="packard"/>

As an example of how behavioral methods can be used in psycholinguistics research, Fischler (1977) investigated word encoding, using a lexical-decision task.<ref name=":3" /> He asked participants to make decisions about whether two strings of letters were English words. Sometimes the strings would be actual English words requiring a "yes" response, and other times they would be non-words requiring a "no" response. A subset of the licit words were related semantically (e.g., cat–dog) while others were unrelated (e.g., bread–stem). Fischler found that related word pairs were responded to faster, compared to unrelated word pairs, which suggests that semantic relatedness can facilitate word encoding.<ref name=":3">{{cite journal | vauthors = Fischler I | title = Semantic facilitation without association in a lexical decision task | journal = Memory & Cognition | volume = 5 | issue = 3 | pages = 335–9 | date = May 1977 | pmid = 24202904 | doi = 10.3758/bf03197580 | doi-access = free }}</ref>

===Eye-movements===
Recently, [[eye tracking]] has been used to study online [[language processing]]. Beginning with Rayner (1978), the importance of understanding eye-movements during reading was established.<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Rayner K|date=May 1978|title=Eye movements in reading and information processing|journal=Psychological Bulletin|volume=85|issue=3|pages=618–60|citeseerx=10.1.1.294.4262|doi=10.1037/0033-2909.85.3.618|pmid=353867}}</ref> Later, Tanenhaus et al. (1995) used a visual-world paradigm to study the cognitive processes related to spoken language.<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Tanenhaus MK, Spivey-Knowlton MJ, Eberhard KM, Sedivy JC|date=June 1995|title=Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension|journal=Science|volume=268|issue=5217|pages=1632–4|bibcode=1995Sci...268.1632T|doi=10.1126/science.7777863|pmid=7777863|s2cid=3073956 }}</ref> Assuming that eye movements are closely linked to the current focus of attention, language processing can be studied by monitoring eye movements while a subject is listening to spoken language.

===Language production errors===
{{Main|Speech error}}

The [[Error analysis (linguistics)|analysis]] of systematic [[Speech error|errors in speech]], as well as the writing and [[Typographical error|typing]] of language, can provide evidence of the process that has generated it. Errors of speech, in particular, grant insight into how the mind produces language while a speaker is mid-utterance. Speech errors tend to occur in the [[lexeme|lexical]], [[morpheme]], and [[phoneme]] encoding steps of language production, as seen by the ways errors can manifest themselves.<ref name="linguisticsociety1">{{cite web|url=http://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/slips-tongue-windows-mind|title=Slips of the Tongue: Windows to the Mind {{!}} Linguistic Society of America|website=www.linguisticsociety.org|access-date=2017-05-02}}</ref>&nbsp;

The types of speech errors, with some examples, include:<ref name="linguisticsociety1" /><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/linguistics/lectures/05lect16.html|title=Lecture No. 16 -- Speech Errors|website=www.departments.bucknell.edu|access-date=2017-05-02}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.omniglot.com/language/articles/speecherrors.htm|title=Speech Errors and What They Reveal About Language|website=www.omniglot.com|access-date=2017-05-02}}</ref>

* Substitutions (phoneme and lexical) — replacing a sound with an unrelated sound, or a word with its antonym, saying such as "verbal&nbsp;'''outfit'''" instead of "verbal&nbsp;'''output'''", or "He rode his bike&nbsp;'''tomorrow'''" instead of "...'''yesterday'''", respectively;
* Blends — mixing two synonyms and saying "my&nbsp;'''stummy'''&nbsp;hurts" in place of either "stomach" or "tummy";
* Exchanges (phoneme [aka [[spoonerism]]s] and morpheme) — swapping two onset sounds or two root words, and saying "You&nbsp;'''h'''issed my&nbsp;'''m'''ystery lectures" instead of "You&nbsp;missed my&nbsp;history lectures", or "They're&nbsp;'''Turk'''ing&nbsp;'''talk'''ish" instead of "They're&nbsp;talking&nbsp;Turkish", respectively;
* Morpheme shifts — moving a function morpheme such as "-ly" or "-ed" to a different word and saying "easy enough'''ly'''" instead of "easily&nbsp;enough",
* Perseveration — incorrectly starting a word with a sound that was a part of the previous utterance, such as saying "John&nbsp;'''g'''ave the&nbsp;'''g'''oy a ball" instead of "John gave the&nbsp;boy a ball";
* Anticipation — replacing a sound with one that belongs later in the utterance, such as saying "She drank a '''c'''ot '''c'''up of tea" instead of "She drank a <u>h</u>ot cup of tea".

Speech errors will usually occur in the stages that involve lexical, morpheme, or phoneme encoding, and usually not in the first step of [[Encoding (memory)#Semantic encoding|semantic encoding]].<ref>{{Cite book|title=Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence|last=Fromkin|first=Victoria A. | name-list-style = vanc |publisher=Mouton & Co. N. V.|year=1973|location=The Netherlands|pages=157–163}}</ref> This can be attributed to a speaker still conjuring the idea of what to say; and unless he changes his mind, can not be mistaken for what he wanted to say.

===Neuroimaging===
{{main|Neurolinguistics}}

Until the recent advent of [[non-invasive]] medical techniques, brain surgery was the preferred way for language researchers to discover how language affects the brain. For example, severing the [[corpus callosum]] (the bundle of nerves that connects the two hemispheres of the brain) was at one time a treatment for some forms of [[epilepsy]]. Researchers could then study the ways in which the comprehension and production of language were affected by such drastic surgery. When an illness made brain surgery necessary, language researchers had an opportunity to pursue their research.

Newer, non-invasive techniques now include brain imaging by [[positron emission tomography]] (PET); [[functional magnetic resonance imaging]] (fMRI); [[event-related potentials]] (ERPs) in [[electroencephalography]] (EEG) and [[magnetoencephalography]] (MEG); and [[transcranial magnetic stimulation]] (TMS). Brain imaging techniques vary in their spatial and temporal resolutions (fMRI has a resolution of a few thousand neurons per pixel, and ERP has millisecond accuracy). Each methodology has advantages and disadvantages for the study of psycholinguistics.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Aguirre GK | title = Functional neuroimaging: technical, logical, and social perspectives | journal = The Hastings Center Report | volume = Spec No | issue = s2 | pages = S8-18 | date = 2014-03-01 | pmid = 24634086 | doi = 10.1002/hast.294 | url = https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1145&context=neuroethics_pubs | doi-access = free }}</ref>

===Computational modeling===
Computational modelling, such as the [[Dual-route hypothesis to reading aloud|DRC model]] of reading and word recognition proposed by [[Max Coltheart]] and colleagues,<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Coltheart M, Rastle K, Perry C, Langdon R, Ziegler J | title = DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud | journal = Psychological Review | volume = 108 | issue = 1 | pages = 204–56 | date = January 2001 | pmid = 11212628 | doi = 10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204 }}</ref> is another methodology, which refers to the practice of setting up cognitive models in the form of executable computer programs. Such programs are useful because they require theorists to be explicit in their hypotheses and because they can be used to generate accurate predictions for theoretical models that are so complex that [[discursive psychology|discursive analysis]] is unreliable. Other examples of computational modelling are [[James McClelland (psychologist)|McClelland]] and [[Jeff Elman|Elman's]] [[Trace (psycholinguistics)|TRACE]] model of [[speech perception]]<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = McClelland JL, Elman JL | title = The TRACE model of speech perception | journal = Cognitive Psychology | volume = 18 | issue = 1 | pages = 1–86 | date = January 1986 | pmid = 3753912 | doi = 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90015-0 | s2cid = 7428866 }}</ref> and Franklin Chang's Dual-Path model of sentence production.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Chang|first=Franklin | name-list-style = vanc |date=September 2002|title=Symbolically　speaking: a connectionist model of sentence production|journal=Cognitive Science|volume=26|issue=5|pages=609–651|doi=10.1207/s15516709cog2605_3|issn=0364-0213|doi-access=free}}</ref>

===Psychophysical approach===
The psychophysical approach in psycholinguistics applies quantitative measurement techniques to investigate how linguistic structures influence perception and cognitive processes. Unlike traditional behavioral experiments that rely on categorical judgments or reaction times, psychophysical methods allow for precise, continuous measurement of perceptual and cognitive changes induced by language.

A key advantage of psychophysical methods is their ability to capture fine-grained perceptual effects of language. For instance, studies on color perception have used just-noticeable difference (JND) thresholds to show that speakers of languages with finer color distinctions (e.g., Russian for light vs. dark blue) exhibit heightened perceptual sensitivity at linguistic category boundaries.<ref name="Winawer2007">Winawer, J., Witthoft, N., Frank, M. C., Wu, L., Wade, A. R., & Boroditsky, L. (2007). "Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(19), 7780-7785. [https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701644104 doi:10.1073/pnas.0701644104]</ref>

Recent psychophysical research has also been applied to time perception, investigating how bilinguals process temporal information differently based on their linguistic background. Using psychophysical duration estimation tasks, researchers have demonstrated that bilinguals may exhibit different time perception patterns depending on which language they are using at the moment.<ref name="AthanasopoulosBylund2023">Athanasopoulos, P., & Bylund, E. (2023). "Cognitive restructuring: Psychophysical measurement of time perception in bilinguals". Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 26(4), 809-818. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728922000664 doi:10.1017/S1366728922000664]</ref>

These methods provide insights into how linguistic categories shape cognitive processing at a perceptual level, distinguishing between effects that arise from language structure itself and those that emerge from general cognitive mechanisms. As psycholinguistics continues to integrate computational and neuroscientific approaches, psychophysical techniques offer a bridge between language processing and sensory cognition, refining our understanding of how language interacts with perception.