simple information transmission by different natural languages
TRANSCRIPT
Mark L. Latash with Irina L. Mikaelian,
Elizaveta M. Latash, Jaebum Park, and Yao Sun
Simple information transmissionby different natural languages
The Pennsylvania State University
Language and Movement
An axiom: These two functions have a lot in common inthe organization of neural control.
Reasons: Both are characterized by hierarchical controland abundance of solutions.
Both are biological time processes.
How to study a biological time process?• Average characteristics;• Variability;• Stability.
Very little is known about speech.
Where to Start?
How long does it take a person to create and uttera phrase describing a situation (a meaning, in ageneral sense) quickly and accurately?
Surprisingly, there is little information.
Sternberg:Quick production of words, numerals, and non-words.Tasks were presented in advance.Speech time increased with NW and NSYL non-linearly(speeding-up for longer tasks).It was not necessary to create a phrase.
Fitts’ Law
MT = a + b•log2ID; where ID = 2D/W,D is movement distance,W is target width,a and b are constants.
Speech analogies:D - number of objects to be described,W - inverse of the number of characteristics of each object.
We expect:ST = a + b• log2ID, where ID = (NO•NC)NO- number of objects; NC - number of characteristics
Experiment-1
Subjects: Six English speakers, six non-English speakersfluent in English.
Task: Describe a picture as quickly and accurately aspossible (non-English speakers performed twice).
Pictures: One to six objects, all of the same kind or alldifferent.
Four Series:S1 - only objects; S2 - objects and color (out of 4); S3 -objects, color, and size (out of 2); S4 - objects, color, size,and relative location (over/on, under).
Speech time changed linearly with NO and NC:ST = a + k•NO•NC
Different from the log-relation typical of Fitts’ Law.
Lessons from Experiment #1
Performance in the second language was characterizedby longer RT and ST, while the function remained the same.
Why?1). A specific strategy of description - sequential.
2). Tracking the initial segment of a non-linear function.
Experiment-2
Subjects: Six Indo-European speakers (three English andthree Russian), six Chinese (Mandarin) speakers.
Task: Describe a picture as quickly and accurately aspossible.
Pictures: Always only two objects.
One Series: Presented as a sequence of three mini-series.
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
stick fork knife
CHIEALL
RT (s
)
OBJECT
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
simple complex
CHIE
RT (s
)
Orientation
Reaction time depended on ID and wasshorter in Chinese speakers
0
2
4
6
8
10
LsOs LsOc LcOs LcOc
ForkKnife
Stick
ST (s
)
CONDITION
A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35ID
B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
y = 1.31 + 1.58x R= 0.956
ST(s
)
ln(ID)
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
y = 1.27 + 1.56x R= 0.996
ln(ID)
D
Stepsin
SpeechTimeData
Processing
y = 1.27 + 1.56x R= 0.996 y = 1.70 + 1.92x R= 0.996y = 1.51 + 1.17x R= 0.993y = 1.71 + 1.04x R= 0.995 y = 1.33 + 1.58x R= 0.997 y = 0.99 + 1.29x R= 0.982
y = 1.51 + 0.497x R= 0.982y = 1.34 + 0.750x R= 0.990y = 1.33 + 0.785x R= 0.995y = 1.40 + 0.665x R= 0.957y = 1.41 + 0.451x R= 0.990y = 1.96 + 0.625x R= 0.987
IE: y = 1.42 + 1.43x R= 0.999 CH: y = 1.49 + 0.63x R= 0.996
IE CH
IE
CH
}}
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
ST (s
)
ln(ID)
ST = a + k•log2(ID)Chinese Speakers were Much Faster
Speech time changed logarithmically with ID:Typical of Fitts’ Law.
Lessons from Experiment #2
Chinese speakers were much faster:Tone as a means of information transmission?
Schematic pictures reminding Chinese characters?Quicker analysis of the picture (supported by shorter RT)?
Trading speed for clarity, more errors?
Speed-difficulty trade-off works in speechsimilarly to how it works in movements.
Experiment-3
Subjects: Eight English speakers, eight Chinese(Mandarin) speakers [plus seven Korean speakers, twoRussian speakers, and four Vietnamese speakers].
Task: Speaker: Describe the picture as quickly andaccurately as possible. Performer: Use the actual objects tocreate the picture described by the Speaker also "asquickly and accurately as possible". Mouse clicks wereused to define the time of action initiation and termination.
Pictures: Always only two objects.
Speaker-Performer & Performer-Only: Each presented asa sequence of four mini-series.
t0(Picture)
tSI(Speech start)
tST(Speech end)
tPI(Action start)
tPT(Action end)
RT = tSI - t0ST = tST - tSIΔSM = tPI - tSIMT = tPT - tPItTT = tPT - t0
RT ΔSM
Error rate was smaller in Chinese subjects (non-sign)
Speaker Performer
Chinese 3.7 4.4English 8.5 4.75Korean 5.4 2.9
Object - 6%Location - 23%Orientation - 71%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
ST MT TT
B
Time Index0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
RT ΔSM
A CHINESEENGLISH
Tim
e (s
)
Time Index
Chinese subjects were faster in all indices
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
CHINESEENGLISH
y = 0.917 + 0.032x R= 0.730 y = 1.13 + 0.005x R= 0.176
Reac
tion
Tim
e (s
)
ln(ID)
RT showed no scaling with ln(ID) forboth groups
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Chinese English Russian Korean Vietnamese
RT (s
)
Language
RT across the languages
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
A: Chinese
CH-1CH-2CH-3CH-4CH-5CH-6CH-7CH-8CH-Average
y = 1.33 + 0.79x R= 0.975 y = 1.31 + 0.86x R= 0.913 y = 1.40 + 1.08x R= 0.992y = 1.36 + 0.76x R= 0.964y = 1.71 + 1.06x R= 0.983 y = 1.60 + 1.08x R= 0.998y = 1.75 + 0.80x R= 0.944y = 1.04 + 1.04x R= 0.992
y = 1.44 + 0.93x R= 0.994
Spee
ch T
ime
(s)
ln(ID)
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
B: English
EN-1EN-2EN-3EN-4EN-5EN-6EN-7EN-8EN-Average
y = 1.84 + 1.35x R= 0.994y = 1.92 + 1.27x R= 0.988y = 1.91 + 1.84x R= 0.990 y = 1.99 + 1.21x R= 0.995 y = 1.39 + 1.60x R= 0.981 y = 1.64 + 1.19x R= 0.980y = 2.19 + 1.21x R= 0.982y = 1.69 + 1.28x R= 0.976 y = 1.95 + 1.17x R= 0.986
ln(ID)
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
C: Korean
Kor-1Kor-2
y = 2.28 + 1.78x R= 0.991 y = 1.83 + 2.13x R= 0.995
ln(ID)
ST = a + k•log2(ID)Chinese subjects were much faster; Korean subjects were slower
0
2
4
6
8
10
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
y = 1.0795 + 1.5633x R= 0.97551 y = 0.77799 + 1.1513x R= 0.98857 y = 0.76324 + 1.3679x R= 0.97654 y = 0.77267 + 2.3452x R= 0.9726
Spee
ch T
ime
(s)
ln(ID)
Vietnamese subjects wereslower than Chinese
D:Vietnamese
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
Chinese English Russian Korean Vietnamese
k-ST
[s/ln
(ID)]
Language
k-values [ST = a + k•log2(ID)] across the languages
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
CHINESEENGLISH
Tim
e (s
)
ln(ID)
ΔSM
Speech-Action Delay was shorter for theChinese subjects; no scaling with ln(ID)
2
4
6
8
10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
A: Chinese
CH-1CH-2CH-3CH-4CH-5CH-6CH-7CH-8CH-Average
y = 2.87 + 1.06x R= 0.96 y = 3.14 + 1.04x R= 0.954y = 1.89 + 0.942x R= 0.978y = 2.76 + 1.03x R= 0.984y = 2.49 + 1.16x R= 0.988y = 2.70 + 1.08x R= 0.971y = 2.75 + 1.11x R= 0.981y = 2.75 + 0.88x R= 0.986
y = 2.67 + 1.04x R= 0.990
Mov
emen
t Tim
e (s
)
ln(ID)
2
4
6
8
10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
C: Korean
Kor-1Kor-2
y = 2.81 + 2.13x R= 0.998y = 3.10 + 1.98x R= 0.980
ln(ID)
2
4
6
8
10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
B: English
EN-1EN-2EN-3EN-4EN-5EN-6EN-7EN-8EN-Average
y = 2.71 + 1.63x R= 0.989 y = 2.34 + 1.27x R= 0.979y = 2.72 + 1.49x R= 0.983y = 2.97 + 1.22x R= 0.977y = 2.11 + 2.06x R= 0.990y = 2.66 + 1.27x R= 0.987y = 1.99 + 1.15x R= 0.983y = 2.12 + 1.59x R= 0.977
y = 2.45 + 1.46x R= 0.995
ln(ID)
MT = a + k•log2(ID)Chinese subjects were much faster; Korean subjects were slower
Vietnamese subjects wereslower than Chinese
D:Vietnamese
2
4
6
8
10
12
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
y = 3.5701 + 2.0791x R= 0.98227 y = 3.4696 + 1.9056x R= 0.99352 y = 3.3562 + 1.5716x R= 0.98669 y = 3.0501 + 2.3029x R= 0.96278
Mov
emen
t Tim
e (s
)
ln(ID)
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
A: Chinese
CH-1CH-2CH-3CH-4CH-5CH-6CH-7CH-8CH-Average
y = 4.52 + 1.06x R= 0.945y = 4.16 + 1.11x R= 0.969y = 3.10 + 1.07x R= 0.971y = 4.18 + 0.976x R= 0.990y = 3.98 + 1.20x R= 0.991y = 4.06 + 1.15x R= 0.961y = 4.09 + 1.15x R= 0.985y = 4.52 + 1.08x R= 0.982
y = 4.08 + 1.10x R= 0.993
Tota
l Per
form
ance
Tim
e (s
)
ln(ID)
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
B: English
EN-1EN-2EN-3EN-4EN-5EN-6EN-7EN-8EN-Average
y = 4.70 + 1.71x R= 0.985y = 5.74 + 1.11x R= 0.932y = 4.54 + 1.54x R= 0.981y = 4.87 + 1.22x R= 0.965y = 3.67 + 2.07x R= 0.989y = 4.20 + 1.23x R= 0.962y = 4.45 + 1.31x R= 0.987y = 4.26 + 1.55x R= 0.978
y = 4.55 + 1.47x R= 0.993
ln(ID)
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
C: Korean
Kor-1Kor-2
y = 4.46 + 2.22x R= 0.998y = 4.76+ 1.92x R= 0.992
ln(ID)
TT = a + k•log2(ID)Chinese subjects were faster; Korean subjects were slower
D:Vietnamese
Vietnamese subjects wereslower than Chinese
4
6
8
10
12
14
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
y = 5.4688 + 2.2244x R= 0.98348 y = 5.4777 + 1.8694x R= 0.99002 y = 5.3316 + 1.4588x R= 0.96922 y = 4.5178 + 2.5043x R= 0.96256
Tota
l Tim
e (s
)
ln(ID)
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
A: ChineseCH-1CH-2CH-3CH-4CH-5CH-6CH-7CH-8CH-Average
y = 1.90 + 0.22x R= 0.843 y = 2.26 + 0.21x R= 0.851 y = 1.69 + 0.16x R= 0.833 y = 1.64 + 0.23x R= 0.878y = 1.60 + 0.17x R= 0.857y = 2.03 + 0.14x R= 0.824y = 1.95 + 0.25x R= 0.775y = 1.54 + 0.13x R= 0.925
y = 1.82 + 0.19x R= 0.914
ln(ID)
Tota
l Per
form
ance
Tim
e (s
)
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
B: EnglishEN-1EN-2EN-3EN-4EN-5EN-6EN-7EN-8EN-Average
y = 2.37 + 0.05x R= 0.470 y = 1.83 + 0.07x R= 0.897y = 1.44 + 0.22x R= 0.866y = 1.69 + 0.14x R= 0.906y = 1.91 + 0.16x R= 0.912y = 1.64 + 0.14x R= 0.851y = 1.54 + 0.11x R= 0.943y = 1.83 + 0.13x R= 0.911
y = 1.78 + 0.13x R= 0.948
ln(ID)
Performer-only
Performer-Only: PT = a + k•log2(ID)Chinese subjects were significantly SLOWER
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
KOREAN
y = 1.81 + 0.196x R= 0.9840y = 1.84 + 0.153x R= 0.991y = 2.1 + 0.199x R= 0.8234y = 1.64 + 0.168x R= 0.875y = 1.84 + 0.236x R= 0.936y = 1.87 + 0.27x R= 0.981y = 1.81 + 0.101x R= 0.912y = 2.1 + 0.186x R= 0.938
y = 1.87 + 0.189x R= 0.981
MT
- Per
form
er -
Onl
y (s
)
ln(ID)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
A: Chinese
CH-1CH-2CH-3CH-4CH-5CH-6CH-7CH-8CH-Average
y = 6.38 + 1.79x R= 0.832y = 6.42 + 2.56x R= 0.965y = 7.80 + 3.41x R= 0.973y = 8.07 + 2.04x R= 0.782y = 11.0 + 3.40x R= 0.977y = 11.6 + 2.84x R= 0.993y = 7.78 + 2.75x R= 0.977y = 7.03 + 3.36x R= 0.964
y = 8.38 + 2.77x R= 0.982
N SYL
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
B: English
EN-1EN-2EN-3EN-4EN-5EN-6EN-7EN-8EN-Average
y = 10.9 + 1.84x R= 0.924y = 9.83 + 2.76x R= 0.96y = 11.2 + 5.31x R= 0.989y = 11.4 + 4.72x R= 0.898y = 13.7 + 6.14x R= 0.949y = 11.3 + 3.65x R= 0.982y = 9.24 + 4.60x R= 0.982y = 12.2 + 3.69x R= 0.968
y = 11.2 + 4.09x R= 0.987
Number of Syllables: NSYL = a + k*ln(ID)Chinese subjects used fewer syllables per ID unit
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
A: ChineseCH-1CH-2CH-3CH-4CH-5CH-6CH-7CH-8CH-Average
RSP
(NSY
L/s)
ln(ID)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
B: EnglishEN-1EN-2EN-3EN-4EN-5EN-6EN-7EN-8EN-Average
ln(ID)
Speech Rate
Speech rate did not differ between the groups.There was a significant drop from ln(ID)=0 and no further changes.
Speech time changed logarithmically with ID:Typical of Fitts’ Law (NB: Performer-Only!)
Lessons from Experiment #3
Chinese speakers are faster in every timing index.
Speed-difficulty trade-off works across languages
The advantage is NOT in:Chinese characters
TonesHigher error rate
Topics for Discussion:
Not all languages are created equal.
Why is Chinese so much more efficient???
RT = RTTRUE + STLATENT
Do we have a nice tool to study languages and populations?
TOEFL should be replaced with TOCFL.