Results

6.3.1 Gating

Chi-square-tests (Pearson) were used to test the hypotheses. Figure 10 shows the absolute frequency of answers for the presented stimuli of different gates.

632

Figure 10: The distribution of answers for different word categories with different gate length (the number in the bar is the absolute frequency of the answers).

A 2x2 χ² test was performed to test the contingency between the word category and the frequency of answers for presented stimuli. For the 100 ms gates, the percentage of the correct answers for proper names was significantly different from the percentage of the correct answers for common nouns {χ² [1] = 317.124, p < 0.001}. For 160 gates, the percentage of the correct answers between proper names and common nouns was significantly different {χ² [1] = 271.012, p < 0.001}.

A 1x2 χ² test was performed to test whether proper names can be recognized at an early point in time. The theoretic random distribution is 50:50 if one assumes that the participants would either say “this is a proper name” or “this is a common noun”.

Theoretically, they had a 50:50 chance to answer the questions correctly. With a random distribution of 50:50, the number of correct answers for presented proper names was not higher than random frequency, neither for 100 ms gates {χ² [1] = 70.56, p < 0.001} nor for 160 ms gates {χ² [1] = 22.563, p < 0.001}.

A 1x2 χ² test was performed to test whether common nouns can be recognized at an early point in time. With the same random distribution, the percentage of correct answers for presented common nouns was higher than the number of correct answers following a random frequency, both for 100 ms gates {χ² [1] = 277.223, p < 0.001} and 160 ms gates {χ² [1] = 331.240, p < 0.001}.

In order to compare rating scores between different word categories, the median value of word categories was calculated for each participant. A Wilcoxon test shows that there was no difference of connotative meaning between proper names (personal names) and common nouns {Z (1) = -1.745, p = 0.081}. The rating median for proper names (here only personal names) was 3.00 and the rating median for common noun

rating was 2.00. The stimulus words used in the gating session did not evoke strong emotional association.

A posteriori analysis of the frequency of gating stimuli was done to explore if there was any correlation between character frequency and accuracy of word category recognition task. Since 100 ms gates and 160 ms are not as long as a complete speech sound, one may use frequency of the first character of the stimuli words to calculate the correlation. A Spearman test shows that there was no correlation between the frequency and accuracy of the word category recognition task, neither for proper names {R = 0.057, p =0.727 for 100 ms gates; R = 0.024, p =0.881 for 160 ms gates}

nor for common nouns {R = 0.118, p =0.468 for 100 ms gates; R = 0.007, p =0.966 for 160 ms gates}.

6.3.2 Visual choice reaction time session

ANOVAs were performed on reaction time data, using both subject and item means.

Only correct responses were evaluated. Both the test by subject and the test by item revealed a significant effect of word category on the choice reaction time {Subject: F (3, 117) = 7.508, p < 0.01; Item: F (3, 135) = 14.809, p < 0.001} (see Figure 11 and Figure 12). There was no subject-gender-specific effect.

813.1

687.6 683.3

831.2

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

common noun personal name geographical name

brand name

reaction time [ms]

Figure 11: Comparison of mean reaction time of the visual session by subject.

806.3

Figure 12: Comparison of mean reaction time of the visual session by item.

A post hoc comparison (Bonferroni) of subject effect showed that there was a significant difference in the reaction time between personal names and brand names {p

< 0.001} as well as geographical names and brand names {p < 0.001}. There was no significant difference of reaction time between personal names and common nouns {p

= 0.132}²; personal names and geographical names {p = 1.000}; common nouns and geographical names {p = 0.078}³ and common nouns and brand names {p = 1.000}.

A post hoc comparison (Bonferroni) of item effect showed that there was a significant difference of reaction time between common nouns and personal names {p

< 0.001}; between common nouns and geographical names {p < 0.001}; between personal names and brand names {p < 0.001}, and between geographical names and brand names {p < 0.001}. There was no significant difference in the reaction time between common nouns and brand names {p = 1.000} as well as between personal names and geographical names {p = 1.000}.

As the Friedman test showed, participants judged four word categories (personal names, common nouns, geographical names and brand names) differently in the sense of their connotative meaning {χ²_r(3) = 15.974, p < 0.01}. The rating median of personal names was 2.75, the rating median of common nouns was 2.00, the rating median of geographical names was 2.00 and the rating median of brand names was 2.00.

Because the rating median of these four word categories were all between two and three, visual stimulus words did not evoke strong emotional associations.

2 A post hoc comparison (LSD) revealed a significant subject effect in the choice reaction time between personal names and common nouns {p < 0.05}.

3 A post hoc comparison (LSD) revealed a significant subject effect in the choice reaction time between geographical names and common nouns {p < 0.05}.

6.3.3 Auditory choice reaction time session

ANOVAs were performed on reaction time data, using both subject and item means.

Only correct responses were considered in data analysis. Both the test by subject and the test by item revealed a significant effect of word category on the choice reaction time {Subject: F (3, 117) = 22.718, p < 0.001; Item: F (3, 130) = 5.544, p < 0.01} (see Figure 13 and Figure 14). There was no subject-gender-specific effect.

A post hoc comparison (Benferroni) of subject effect showed that there was a significant difference in the reaction time between common nouns and personal names {p < 0.001}; between common nouns and geographical names {p < 0.001}; between personal names and brand names {p < 0.001}, and between geographical names and brand names {p < 0.001}. There was no significant difference of reaction time between common nouns and brand names {p = 1.000} as well as between personal names and geographical names {p = 0.443}.

Figure 13: Comparison of mean reaction time of the auditory session by subject.

1078.7

Figure 14: Comparison of mean reaction time of the auditory session by item.

A post hoc comparison (Bonferroni) of item effect showed that there was a significant difference of reaction time between common nouns and personal names {p

< 0.05}; common nouns and geographical names {p < 0.05}. There was no significant difference in the reaction time between personal names and geographical names {p = 1.000}; personal names and brand names {p = 0.094}⁴; common nouns and brand names {p = 1.000}; and between geographical names and brand names {p = 0.069}⁵.

For the auditory choice reaction time session, the Friedman test showed that subjects ranked four word categories (personal names, common nouns, geographical names and brand names) differently in the sense of their affective content { χ²_r(3) = 19.906, p < 0.001}. The rating median of personal names was 3.00, the rating median of common nouns was 2.00, the rating median of geographical names was 2.00 and the rating median of brand names was 2.00. Auditory stimulus words did not contain strong emotional associations or personal relevance for the subjects.

6.3.4 Concrete suggestions for presented items and strategies

In this experiment, subjects seldom recognized presented stimuli concretely as words.

For 100 ms gates: only 0.38 % of all stimuli were recognized as target words; 1.38 % of all stimuli were not recognized as target words correctly. For 160 ms gates: only 2.63

% of all stimuli were recognized correctly as target words; 2.97 % of all stimuli were not recognized as target words. Retrospection of subjects indicated that about half of the participants did not use explicit strategies but just “guessed” the answer according to their instinct. Four participants said that they chose common noun if they did not have a concrete word candidate, whereas two participants chose proper name in the same situation. Four participants used distinctive phonological features for two word categories to support for their decisions. Six participants made morphological associations to select a word candidate and then categorized the word category information. Three participants expressed explicitly that they were able to recognize common nouns because they could find a word candidate for the presented sound very quickly.

6.3.5 Summary of behavioral results

Participants could recognize better common nouns than proper names. However, they were not able to recognize proper names with the provided auditory gates (100 ms &

4 A post hoc comparison (LSD) revealed a significant item effect in reaction time between personal names and brand names {p < 0.05}.

5 A post hoc comparison (LSD) revealed a significant item effect in reaction time between geographical names and brand names {p < 0.05}.

160 ms). The word category had an effect on the choice reaction time. In general, participants responded significantly faster to proper names (personal names and geographical names) than common nouns. The reaction time of brand names was similar to common nouns. These results were independent of modality.