Associative vocabulary learning: development and testing of two paradigms for the (re-) acquisition of action- and object-related words

• Published in: PloS one 2012-06, Vol.7 (6), p.e37033-e37033
• Main Authors: Freundlieb, Nils, Ridder, Volker, Dobel, Christian, Enriquez-Geppert, Stefanie, Baumgaertner, Annette, Zwitserlood, Pienie, Gerloff, Christian, Hummel, Friedhelm C, Liuzzi, Gianpiero
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Analysis of Variance; Association Learning - physiology; Associative learning; Biology; Brain; Brain - physiology; Brain research; Comparative analysis; Cortex; Feedback; Female; Germany; Humans; Hypotheses; Language; Language acquisition; Language Development; Learning; Male; Medical imaging; Medicine; Middle Aged; Models, Psychological; Neuroimaging; Neurology; Neurophysiology; Neurosciences; Paradigms; Pharmacology; Photic Stimulation; Reaction Time; Retention; Retention (Psychology) - physiology; Semantics; Sensorimotor system; Social and Behavioral Sciences; Statistics, Nonparametric; Stroke; Translation; Verbal Learning - physiology; Vocabulary; Word processing
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037033

Despite a growing number of studies, the neurophysiology of adult vocabulary acquisition is still poorly understood. One reason is that paradigms that can easily be combined with neuroscientfic methods are rare. Here, we tested the efficiency of two paradigms for vocabulary (re-) acquisition, and compared the learning of novel words for actions and objects. Cortical networks involved in adult native-language word processing are widespread, with differences postulated between words for objects and actions. Words and what they stand for are supposed to be grounded in perceptual and sensorimotor brain circuits depending on their meaning. If there are specific brain representations for different word categories, we hypothesized behavioural differences in the learning of action-related and object-related words. Paradigm A, with the learning of novel words for body-related actions spread out over a number of days, revealed fast learning of these new action words, and stable retention up to 4 weeks after training. The single-session Paradigm B employed objects and actions. Performance during acquisition did not differ between action-related and object-related words (time*word category: p = 0.01), but the translation rate was clearly better for object-related (79%) than for action-related words (53%, p = 0.002). Both paradigms yielded robust associative learning of novel action-related words, as previously demonstrated for object-related words. Translation success differed for action- and object-related words, which may indicate different neural mechanisms. The paradigms tested here are well suited to investigate such differences with neuroscientific means. Given the stable retention and minimal requirements for conscious effort, these learning paradigms are promising for vocabulary re-learning in brain-lesioned people. In combination with neuroimaging, neuro-stimulation or pharmacological intervention, they may well advance the understanding of language learning to optimize therapeutic strategies.