Levels of Processing Effects in Bilinguals Recognition Memory

Marisela GutierrezThesis Director: Dr. Francis, Ph.D.

University of Texas at El Paso

Supported by a Teachers for a New Era Mini-Grant

Purpose

Study the effects of levels of processing in bilinguals’ recognition memory based on their dominant and non-dominant languages.

Introduction

Bilinguals’ recognition memory has not been well studied. We can think of working in the non-dominant language as working with less attention or with less familiar words.

Bilinguals’ recognition memory can be understood by the effects of divided attention and word frequency on memory recognition.

Levels of Processing

Memory storage varies in how deeply the items are processed. Deep processing- thinking about the meaning Shallow processing- visual features (e.g. vowels)

The deeper the level of processing, the higher the probability that the information will be later retrieved.

Divided attention effect on recognitionMemory performance is reduced.LOP effect is reduced.

Word frequency effect on recognitionBetter memory performance for low

frequency words.LOP effect stronger for low frequency

words.

Previous Studies

Predictions

Based on effects of divided attention: Memory performance was expected to be lower in

the less fluent language. LOP effect was expected to be weaker in the less

fluent language.

Based on effects of word frequency: Memory performance was expected to be better in

the less fluent language. LOP effect was expected to be stronger in the less

fluent language.

Method

ParticipantsMiddle school students from TexPrep

summer Program. N= 46 bilinguals.Average age= 14

UTEP studentsN= 64 bilinguals.Average age= 20

Design

2 (language) x 3 (encoding condition)Languages: English and SpanishEncoding conditions: deep, shallow and

not studied. Dependent variable: recognition

performance and response time.

Materials

TexPrep students Instruction sheet Study sheet Recognition sheet Language Background questionnaire

UTEP students Consent form PsyScope program Language background questionnaire

Procedure

Study phase54 words “NP” – natural or made by people “#V” – count the number of vowels

Recognition phase108 words 2 studied sets + 2 unstudied sets

Different procedures

Hit and false alarm rates

.0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

Dominant Non- dominant

Proportion YES Responses

Deep

Shallow

Not studied

Language

Hit Rates and False Alarm Rates Hit Rates and False Alarm Rates

.0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

Dominant Non- dominant

Language

Deep

Shallow

Not studied

Pro

po

rtio

n Y

ES

re

spo

nse

s

TexPrep students UTEP students

Signal detection analysis

Noise and Signal Distributions

- 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Z score relative to noise

Pro

babilit

y D

ensit

y

Not Studied

L1 Shallow

L2 Shallow

L1 Deep

L2 Deep

TexPrep students

Signal detection analysis

Signal Detection Analysis

- 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Z score relative to noise

Pro

babilit

y D

ensit

y

Not Studied

Shallow

Deep

RESPOND NO RESPOND YES

UTEP students

Response times (UTEP students)

Mean Response Times

.0

200.0

400.0

600.0

800.0

1000.0

1200.0

1400.0

Dominant Non-dominant Language

Response time (ms)

Deep

Shallow

Summary of results

The TexPrep students performed better in the dominant language, but UTEP students did not show a language effect.

The level of processing effects were significant for both groups in both languages.

Levels of processing did not interact with languages.

Discussion

Memory performance in bilinguals less fluent language cannot be adequately explained by either divided attention or by low word frequency.

For future research, factors like type of materials and environment may be addressed.

Summary Table-TexPrep

Language Condition % “yes” responses

Corrected recognition

d’

L1 Deep 82.3% 75.9% 2.8

Shallow 54.6% 48.2% 1.8

False alarm 6.4%

L2 Deep 75.7% 67.1% 2.3

Shallow 49.8% 41.2% 1.6

False alarm 8.6%

Table 1. Recognition performance of TexPrep students as function of language condition

Summary Table-UTEP

Language Condition % “yes” responses

Corrected recognition

d’ RT

L1 Deep 85.9% 75.7% 2.6 967

Shallow 63.4% 53.1% 1.8 1155

False alarm 10.3%

L2 Deep 87.8% 77.6% 2.7 1006

Shallow 64.4% 54.2% 1.8 1161

False alarm 10.2%

Table 2. Recognition performance of UTEP students as function of language condition