The 4th IEEE International Conference on E-Health and Bioengineering - EHB 2013

Grigore T Popa University o{Medicine and Pharmacy, ia:ji, Romania, November 21-23,2013

The Effect of Mental Strategy in Lexical Training

upon Improving Phychometric Reaction Time
Hariton Costin
Depart. of Electronics, Faculty of Medical Bioengineering
Institute of Computer Science of Romanian Academy, Iasi
Cristian Rotariu
Depart. of Electronics, Faculty of Medical Bioengineering
University of Medicine and Pharmacy "Gr.T. Popa", Iasi,

Bogdan Dionisie
Depart. of Physiology and Functional Testing
University of Medicine and Pharmacy "Gr.T. Popa",
Iasi, Romania
bdionisie@yahoo.co. uk

Abstract-

The experiment purposes to assess which type of

mental strategy in training lexical abilities has the best reaction

time improvement. Three groups of 16 persons each (equal men

women), equalized distributed as lexical performance after a

pre-evaluated test were trained three days each using one of
three type of methods - icon-nonlexical, graphemic-letter and
semantic-icon-lexical

mixed.

We

assess

reaction

time

improvement for each group at: icon, letter and semantic lexical
decision

tasks

using

Romanian

patented

psycho-verbal

stimulation interface. Results proved the best results were for

specific

task

training,

and

the

fact

that

semantic

training

develops also sensorial-letter decoding abilities, but icon and

letter

recognition

(non-semantic)

training

do

not

improve

semantic decoding, but can even worsen comprehensive reading.

Keywords- neurophysiology; neuropsychology;

linguistics; reaction times (RTs); reading mechanism.

I.

neuro

INTRODUCTION

Previous experiments demonstrated that is a variability of

results in reaction time values at lexical tasks, depending on
manual skills professional achieved - which seems to be more
pronounced at men, but also depending on lexical abilities which looks to be more developed at women [I].
However, it is more plausible to assume that lexical abilities
reflected in reaction times are not an innate quality depending
on human gender, but rather a result of human strategy
adopted in lexical training and behavioural skills acquired
over time [2][3].
If the main factor of improving lexical reaction time is the
training of subjects, there are the reasons to prove what kind
of strategies adopted in lexical training are better to obtain the
best results.
The aim of the experiment is to assess which type of
training: sensorial, lexical or meaning decoding based is more
efficient to improve reaction times.
II.

DATABASE AND METHODS

Reaction times were collected using a patented psycho

verbal stimulation interface, on a 48 persons group, half man
- half women, with age between 20 and 40 year-old, selected
by written voluntary accord, right-handed persons proved by

a modified version of the Edinburgh inventory, possessing

normal visual and lexical functions.
Psycho-verbal stimulation interface consists in a software
program which delivers visual stimuli on a PC display and
each stimulus sample can be customized as text, image or
both with a fully configurable exposed time schema. The
application can measure the patient's reaction time by
pressing a key to each stimulus sample, which are finally
centralized on a list control.
Each list of items contained 500 words or icons with high
lexical frequency, without specific domain, presented
binocular for 1000 ms, pause of 1000 ms, font 120 yellow on
black background, with a stable repeated expose (left-down
comer of the screen) at 60 cm on the central visual field [4].
The experiment used word-by-word or icon-by-icon
slideshow, in three types of preliminary tasks: icon
categorical recognition, letter recognition and a categorical
lexical recognition.
The preliminary results were used to compare the effect of
strategy of training of three subgroups of 16 persons (8 men
and 8 women) equal distributed by professional criteria,
gender and preliminary reaction times assessment.
The first 16 persons group - named "sensorial-non-lexicaf'
group - was trained using only images and icons, in three
types of exercises: to press the key as quickly is possible as
soon the image was displayed, to identify a geometric shape
in a string of 5-10 non-lexical elements and to press the key if
the image belongs to a category (" home tools" ).
"
The second 16 persons group - called "graphemic-letter
group - was trained to identify similar letter (graphemes) by
checking the phrases from newspapers and books against
time and to identify similar letters by checking the words
displayed on the computer.
"
The third group - named "semantic group - was trained to
identify the semantic affiliation of words at a category of
associated icon, by checking a written text and a categorial
judgment task, identical to the ultimate test.
On fourth day, at the final test, each group was tested using
three word-lists randomly integrated for each of the 48
subjects: first task was to press the key at a categorial icon
identification ("creatures" ), the second task was to press the
key at a letter (" r" ) identification, and at the third task was to

978-1-4799-2373-1/13/$31.00 2013 IEEE

press the key at the decision if a written word belongs to a

category (" creatures" ) - the same types of tasks as the
preliminary assessment.
The improving of reaction times was assessed individual as
the difference from preliminary and post-training reaction
times for each task. It was made the arithmetical average and
distribution of the reaction times for each subject from each
group at each task, the differential of reaction times
improving average between the preliminary and post-trained
assessment for each subject and to each task, and the
arithmetical average per group and per task.
III.

1---#------ ------+ -30

Average RTs
improvement

Sensorialnonlexical trained
rOUfJ
Graphemic-letter
trained rOUfJ
Semantic trained
group

Average
decrease of
RTs at iconstimuli

Average
decrease of
RTs at letter
identification

Average
decrease of
RTs at
semantic
decision

-30ms 6 ms

-10 ms2 ms

-5 msJms

-10 ms 2ms

- 20 ms 4 ms

+5ms Ims

-10 ms 3ms

-20 ms 5ms

-50ms7ms

The negative values in table I express the average

improvement per each group separately trained. The positive
value at semantic lexical tasks recorded by graphemic-letter
group trained has proved a worsening of comprehensive
lexical decoding.
According fig. 1. all types of training improved the reaction
time and this fact contradicts the previous conclusions witch
suspects the gender factor involvement in motor and lexical
abilities.
Moreover, there are significant differences between each
type of strategy's training upon reaction time improvement.
In general, each type of training recorded primary the best
improvement of reaction time for each specific task and
secondary it create a positive effect in decoding non-specific
tasks.
The group of persons involved in no lexical training has
improved all tasks reaction times, but the best improvement
was icon-stimuli decision task (- 30 ms 6 ms) and less for
semantic lexical decision (-5 msJ ms). (see Table II).
These findings express the specific effect of icon-image
training upon icon-image recognition speed [5][6].
Statistically, it exists strong and significant differences
between reaction times improvement at icon-stimuli, unlike
reaction time (RTs) improvement at graphemic-letter
identification (p < 0.001, t 12,65) or categorical judgment
(p< 0.001, t
16,44) on the sensorial non-lexical trained
group, and the threshold of significance exceed 99,9%.
=

=
o

'B
'"
'"

------------+ -40

Measurements from different types of training have

improved the response time up to 50 ms (see Table I).
TABLE I. THE REACTION TIME IMPROVEMENT TO SPECIFIC
TRAINING

10

Graphemic
g
letter
--,.011!!!=----+ -10
trained
>=
.=
group
1----7#''----- ""'----- ----+ -20 E-<
Semantic
trained
group

RESULTS

Decrease of
RTs at
Decrease of Decrease of
semantic
RTs at icon RTs at letter
lexical
stimuli
identification decision

Sensorial
nonlexical
trained
group

-so
..------------------ - GO

Fig. I. The graphic expresses the improvement in reaction times as negative

differences values: yellow line shows the semantic training effect upon RTs,
the violet line shows the graphemic-letter effect and the dark-blue
corresponds to the icon-image training effect
TABLE II. STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE IN THE DIFFERENCE OF
REACTION TIMES IMPROVEMENT AT
THE GROUP SENSORIAL-NONLEXICAL TRAINED

Test t-Student

(GL 30)
=

RTs improvement
at graphemic-letter
identification

RTs improvement
at semantic lexical
decision

t=12,65
p < 0,001
-

t=16,44
P < 0,001
t=8,94
p < 0,001

RTs improvement at iconstimuli

RTs improvement at
raphemic-letter

For the group " graphemic-Ietter" trained, it has been found

the best improvement of RTs at graphemic-letter
identification task (-20 ms 4 ms), but not for semantic
lexical decision where it has been found even worse RTs
(+5ms 1ms) for 30% of the subjects and without
improvement for 50% of the subjects (see Table III).
TABLE III. STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE IN THE DIFFERENCE OF
REACTION TIMES IMPROVEMENT AT GRAPHEMIC-LETTER
TRAINED GROUP

Test t-Student

(GL 30)
=

RTs improvement at
icon-stimuli
RTs improvement at
graphemic-letter identification

RTs improvement
at graphemicletter
identification

RTs improvement
at semantic
lexical decision

t - 8,94
p < 0,001
-

t - 26,83
P < 0,001
t= 24,25
p < 0,001

The best improvement of RTs was for semantic trained

group at semantic lexical decision task (-50 ms 7ms), but for
the icon-stimuli and graphemic-letter identification task the
improvement was the same as for the " graphemic-Ietter"
trained group (see Table IV).
Statistically, it exists strong and significant differences
between reaction times improvement at semantic lexical
decision task, unlike reaction time (RTs) improvement at
graphemic-letter identification (p < 0.00 I, t
13,95) or
categorical judgment (p < 0.001, t
21,01) for semantic
=

access trained group, and the threshold of significance exceed

99,9%. The comprehensive lexical training has proved to be
the most effective strategy to improve lexical abilities for
normal persons.
TABLE IV. STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE IN THE DIFFERENCE OF
REACTION TIMES IMPROVEMENT AT SEMANTIC TRAINED
GROUP

Test t-Studeut

(GL=30)
RTs improvement at
icon-stimuli
RTs improvement at
graphemic-letter
identification

IV.

RTs improvement at
graphemic-letter
identification
t= 6,86
p < 0,001
-

RTs improvement
at semantic
lexical decision
t= 21,01
p < 0,001
t= 13,95
p < 0,001

CONCLUSION

We compared the reaction times for men and women after

the training and it was found that there are no differences
between men-women RTs (differences of improvement less
5ms), results which not contradict the previous experiments
that proved there is a predisposition for superior motion skills
for men. The training seems to equalize the outcomes in RTs.
Nevertheless, the pressing key act does not imply a complex
strength-coordination motion. These facts make the
interpretation more subtle and prudent for the implication of
motor skills in RTs determination [7].
For the sensorial non-lexical trained group, there are
recorded the best improvement of RTs at the specific icon
and non-graphemic recognition tasks (- 30 ms 6 ms), a slight
improvement for the letter recognition task and less
improvement for de lexical decision task. There is an
explanation regarding of this facts, that subjects are high
right-hemisphere activity involved in processing images and
less in a left-hemisphere activity which processes lexical
information. The right hemisphere training does not improve
the lexical meaning access even there was a categorial
judgment at images. However, excepting the possibility of a
motor improvement ability in key-pressing, there could come
the conclusion that sensorial training improves graphemic
letter recognition performance [8].
For the group letter recognition training, there was
expected to obtain the best improvement at the specific letter
decision task, and but not an improvement of image
recognition task, knowing the fact that images and written
text are processed by different parts of brain. These findings
suggest that images and letters are linked, even that separate
parts of brain process them [9].
What was paradoxical is the fact that this group "obtained"
a decreased performance in lexical meaning decoding. It
seems that letter-focused training reduced the performance of
meaning access and this could be explain by the fact that
excessive focused on letter decoding block or reduce the
performance of representation or meaning memory.

There is known that dyslexic children spend a lot of energy

for letter recognition due the lack of spatial-temporal
discrimination of letters shape and lack of phonemic stringing
abilities, and these facts reduce the meaning access of written
words [10].
The semantic trained group has proved the best RTs
improvement at semantic decision task (-50 ms). The RTs for
the letter-recognition and icon-recognition task show the
same improvement such for letter-graphemic group, and these
could be a clue that letter decoding is a subsidiary process of
comprehensive reading and a comprehensive strategy of
written words decoding improves also image and letter
recognition performance [11].
Over all these, the semantic trained group has recorded the
fewest false negative responses (the lack of errors). The false
positive responses (error of key-pressing) did not decrease
and this fact seems to prove that decision 0 pressing key is a
competitive process with rational decision process for the
20% of subjects.
REFERENCES
B. Dionisie, H. Costin and C. Rotariu, "The study upon differences in
reaction times in lexical and judgment tasks using a patented psycho
verbal stimulation interface," E-Health and Bioengineering Conference
(EHBJ, 24-26 Nov. 2011.
[2] E. Mooshagian, M. Iacoboni and E. Zaidel, "The role of task history in
simple
reaction
time
to
lateralized
light
flashes,"
Neuropsychologia, vol. 46 (2), pp. 659-664, 2008.
[3] 1. Altarriba and H. Knickerbocker, "Acquiring second language
vocabulary through the use of images and words," In P. Trofimovich &
K. McDonough (Eds.), Applying priming methods to L2 learning,
teaching and research, 20 II, pp. 21-48.
[4] B. Dionisie, H. Costin, F. Frunza and G. Andruseac, 'The validity of
linguistic specificity for N400 component in cognitive visual evoked
potentials technique using a Romanian psycho-verbal stimulation
interface," E-Health and Bioengineering Conference (EHBJ, 24 - 26
Nov. 2011.
[5] L. Johannsen, K.Z.H. Li, M. Chechlacz, A Bibi, Z. Kourtzi and AM.
Wing, "Functional neuroimaging of the interference between working
memory and the control of periodic ankle movement timing,"
Neuropsychologia, vol. 51 (11), pp. 2142-2153, Sept. 2013.
[6] M.M. Murray, J.J. Foxe, B.A Higgins, D.C. Javitt and C.E. Schroeder,
"Visuo-spatial neural response interactions in early cortical processing
during a simple reaction time task: a high-density electrical mapping
study," Neuropsychologia, vo1.39 (88), pp. 828-844, 2001.
[7] N.S. Segalowitz and S.1. Segalowitz, "Skilled performance, practice,
and the diflerentiation of speed-up from automatization eflects:
Evidence
from
second
language
word
recognition,"App/ied
Psycholinguistics, vol. 14(03), pp. 369-385, 1993.
[8] M.C. Corballis, "Hemispheric interactions in simple reaction time,"
Neuropsychologia, vol. 40(4), pp. 423-434, 2002.
[9] R.1. Davidson, S.C. Leslie and C. Saron, "Reaction time measures of
interhemispheric transfer time in reading disabled and normal
children," Neuropsychologia, vol. 28 (5), pp. 471-485, 1990.
[10] S. Primativo, L.S. Arduino, M. De Luca, R. Daini and M. Martelli,
"Neglect dyslexia: A matter of good looking," Neuropsychologia,
vol.51 (11), pp. 2109-2119, Sept. 2013.
[II] U. Goswami and P. Bryant, Phonological skills and learning to read.
Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990.

[I]