Multisensory Connections of Novel Linguistic Stimuli in Japanese as a Native Language and Referential Tastes.

Yan Yan, Yutao Yang, Misa Ando, Xinyi Liu, Toshimune Kambara
Author Information
  1. Yan Yan: Department of Psychology, Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University, 1-1-1 Kagamiyama, Hiroshima 7398524, Japan. ORCID
  2. Yutao Yang: Department of Psychology, Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University, 1-1-1 Kagamiyama, Hiroshima 7398524, Japan.
  3. Misa Ando: Program in Psychology, School of Education, Hiroshima University, 1-1-1 Kagamiyama, Hiroshima 7398524, Japan.
  4. Xinyi Liu: Department of Psychology, Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University, 1-1-1 Kagamiyama, Hiroshima 7398524, Japan.
  5. Toshimune Kambara: Department of Psychology, Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University, 1-1-1 Kagamiyama, Hiroshima 7398524, Japan. ORCID

Abstract

Previous findings have shown essential connections between linguistic and gustatory stimuli for people with autism or lexical gustatory synesthesia. We examined the associative learning of novel linguistic forms in Japanese as a native language and tastes (candies and chocolates) for healthy people. Healthy subjects performed four phases: (a) evaluation phase of gustatory features; (b) learning phases of novel linguistic form and gustatory stimulus pairs (G) or novel word forms (W); (c) recognition memory phases linked with G and W; and (d) free recall phase for G and W. In the recognition memory phases, the performance scores of W were higher than those of G, while there was no significant difference between response times of G and W. Additionally, no difference between recall performances in G and W was also shown. A subjective evaluation of gustatory features (sweetness) negatively correlated with the recall score for linguistic forms connected to the gustatory feature, whereas the accuracy rates of the recognition memory phase in G positively correlated with those of the free recall phase in G. Although learning of novel linguistic forms is more efficient than learning of the relationships between novel linguistic forms and tastes, gustatory features influence the free recall performances of linguistic forms linked with the tastes. These results may contribute to future applications to word learning not just for patients, but also healthy people.

Keywords

References

  1. Nat Prod Rep. 2017 May 10;34(5):484-495 [PMID: 28393162]
  2. Neuropsychologia. 2015 Dec;79(Pt A):33-41 [PMID: 26476370]
  3. Hum Brain Mapp. 2009 Mar;30(3):976-89 [PMID: 18412130]
  4. Behav Modif. 2005 Jul;29(4):696-707 [PMID: 15911690]
  5. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005 Sep;25(1):359-71 [PMID: 16095887]
  6. Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ. 2021 Jun 21;11(2):616-626 [PMID: 34708820]
  7. Cognition. 2003 Oct;89(3):237-61 [PMID: 12963263]
  8. Can J Psychol. 1964 Jun;18:146-55 [PMID: 14180519]
  9. Clin Neurophysiol. 2017 Jun;128(6):882-891 [PMID: 28399442]
  10. Neuroimage. 2003 Sep;20(1):1-11 [PMID: 14527565]
  11. Behav Res Methods. 2020 Apr;52(2):544-560 [PMID: 31161427]
  12. Dev Psychol. 2009 Nov;45(6):1774-86 [PMID: 19899931]
  13. Behav Anal Pract. 2017 May 16;10(3):252-260 [PMID: 29021936]
  14. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2013 Feb;142(1):282-7 [PMID: 23398183]
  15. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2005 Feb;22(1):28-41 [PMID: 21038239]
  16. PLoS One. 2020 Apr 6;15(4):e0228614 [PMID: 32251436]
  17. Behav Sci (Basel). 2020 Oct 13;10(10): [PMID: 33066229]
  18. Sci Rep. 2018 Oct 26;8(1):15868 [PMID: 30367077]
  19. Brain Lang. 2004 Jun;89(3):617-22 [PMID: 15120553]
  20. Nature. 2006 Nov 23;444(7118):438 [PMID: 17122848]
  21. Behav Sci (Basel). 2021 Jun 21;11(6): [PMID: 34205574]
  22. Cognition. 2005 Aug;97(1):B13-23 [PMID: 15925356]
  23. Neuropsychology. 1999 Oct;13(4):467-74 [PMID: 10527055]
  24. Front Psychol. 2013 Oct 23;4:775 [PMID: 24167497]
  25. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014 Sep 19;369(1651):20130298 [PMID: 25092666]
  26. Cognition. 2008 Oct;109(1):54-65 [PMID: 18835600]
  27. J Cogn Neurosci. 2015 Apr;27(4):775-86 [PMID: 25269110]
  28. Iperception. 2015 Aug 31;6(4):2041669515593040 [PMID: 27433316]
  29. Neuroimage. 2014 Jan 1;84:265-78 [PMID: 23962957]
  30. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2016;69(7):1322-39 [PMID: 26241013]
  31. Brain Lang. 2017 Apr;167:44-60 [PMID: 27291335]
  32. Learn Mem. 2013 Dec 17;21(1):21-7 [PMID: 24345636]
  33. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2018 Jun;71(6):1469-1481 [PMID: 28856956]
  34. J Psycholinguist Res. 2021 Aug;50(4):831-842 [PMID: 33394300]
  35. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2017 Nov;58(11):1251-1263 [PMID: 28464253]
  36. Front Psychol. 2020 Jun 05;11:986 [PMID: 32581914]
  37. Perception. 2007;36(4):495-507 [PMID: 17564196]
  38. Perception. 2004;33(4):429-42 [PMID: 15222391]
  39. Neuroimage. 2005 Apr 15;25(3):958-68 [PMID: 15808996]

Grants

  1. 19K13181/KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid for Early-Career Scientists

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0gustatoryGlinguisticlearningformsWnovelrecalllanguagephasefeaturespeopleJapanesetastesphasesrecognitionmemoryfreeshownassociativenativehealthyevaluationwordlinkeddifferenceperformancesalsocorrelatedPreviousfindingsessentialconnectionsstimuliautismlexicalsynesthesiaexaminedcandieschocolatesHealthysubjectsperformedfourphases:bformstimuluspairscdperformancescoreshighersignificantresponsetimesAdditionallysubjectivesweetnessnegativelyscoreconnectedfeaturewhereasaccuracyratespositivelyAlthoughefficientrelationshipsinfluenceresultsmaycontributefutureapplicationsjustpatientsMultisensoryConnectionsNovelLinguisticStimuliNativeLanguageReferentialTastesdualcodingtheoryembodiedmeaninglesswords

Similar Articles

Cited By