Simple information transmission by different natural languages

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).

Reaction TimeRT = aRT + kRT•NO

Speech Time Analysis: ST = a + k•NO

ST = a + k•NO

Speech Time AnalysisST = a + k•NO k = b + g•NC

b = 0 : ST = a + k•NO•NC

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.

Experiment #2

Indices of Difficulty: ID = IDOB•IDLO•IDOR

Object

Location

Orientation

1 2 4

1 2

1 4

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.


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.

IDOB = 4IDLO = 2IDOR = 4ID = 32



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


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



y = 2.45 + 1.46x R= 0.995

ln(ID)

MT = a + k•log2(ID)Chinese subjects were much faster; Korean subjects were slower


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


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



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


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 = 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 = 1.87 + 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



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



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!)


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.

Thank you very much!

Vladimir Zatsiorsky

Motor Control Laboratory @ PSUGraduate StudentsShweta KapurTarkeshwar Singh Varadhan SKMYao Sun

Research AssociatesJaebum ParkMiriam Klous

Date post:	16-Jul-2015
Category:	Technology
Upload:	yaevents
View:	390 times
Download:	2 times

Simple information transmission by different natural languages

Technology