Relationship between

attentional processing of input and working memory: an eye-tracking study

Bimali Indrarathne Judit Kormos

Lancaster University

Attention

Attention is “taking possession by the mind, in

clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem

several simultaneously possible objects or trains

of thought” (James, 1890, p. 403-404)

Consciousness

Understanding of one’s experiences (Max

Velmans, 2009; Nagel, 1974)

Background

Attention with

consciousness

Attention without

consciousness

WM

Koch and Tsuchiya (2006)

Background

comprehension of L2 input

processing and encoding this perceived

input into long-term memory

directing learners’ attention to the relevant

features of the input

Working

memory &

input

processing

Background

WM model (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974-2015)

Central

Executive

Phonological

loop

Visuospatial

sketchpad Episodic buffer

temporary store

articulatory

information

temporary store

visual and spatial

information

coordinating the subsidiary

memory system switching attention

controlling encoding retrieval strategies

Inhibition Monitoring & updating

temporary store

combine

information from

different sections

Background

Existing research on WM –

grammar learning link

Background

Working

memory

components

assessed

Learning

conditions

Outcome

measures

Relationship with

WM components

Ellis & Sinclair (1996) PSTM Implicit

Implicit

Explicit knowledge

Implicit knowledge

Significant

Significant

Williams & Lovatt (2003) PSTM Implicit Explicit knowledge Significant

Martin & Ellis (2012) PSTM Implicit Explicit knowledge Significant

Grey et al. (2015) PSTM Implicit

Implicit

Implicit knowledge

Explicit knowledge

Non-significant

Non-significant

Santamaria and

Sunderman (2015)

PSTM Explicit Explicit Significant

Robinson (2005) PSTM Explicit

Implicit

Explicit

Implicit

Significant

Non-significant

Tagarelli, Borges Mota and

Rebuschat (2011, 2015)

PSTM

Complex WM

Explicit

Implicit

Implicit

Implicit

Non-significant

Non-significant

?

?

?

?

OVERVIEW

Background

Explicit

knowledge

Implicit

knowledge

Explicit condition √ x

Implicit condition ? ?

Research design

PR

E T ES T

PO

S T T E

S T

Control group

unenhanced unenhanced unenhanced

enhanced only enhanced only enhanced only

enhanced + instructions

enhanced + instructions

enhanced + instructions

enhanced + instructions

enhanced +

instructions

enhanced +

instructions

PPT- explicit

explanation

WORK

ING

MEMO

RY T

ESTS

A

B

C

D

How the functioning of WM including both

phonological loop and central executive

functions is related to the change in

knowledge of the target grammatical

construction ‘causative had’ in different

input conditions

How the functioning of the WM including

both phonological loop and central

executive functions is related to the

attention paid to target items

Aims of the study

To investigate....

100 undergraduates at a Sri Lankan university

Age between 18-22

First language Sinhala speakers

Had been learning English as an L2

B1/low B2 level of proficiency

20 in a group

Methodology

Participants

Three stories

Controlled for length, word frequency

Target construction– causative ‘had’ –

E.g. I had my car repaired (BNC)

7 examples in each story – 21 in total

Every other day for one week (3 times)

Methodology

Input

Tobii X2-60 portable eye tracker fixed to a laptop

Slides were prepared on PowerPoint first: 24-point, double-spaced Calibri

Areas of Interest (AOI) - example of the target structure

All words of the AOI placed in one line

Methodology

Eye-tracking

Sentence Reconstruction items (6/20) – written (explicit/implicit knowledge)

Sarah got someone to print invitation cards for her party.

Sarah had .....................................

Timed Grammaticality Judgement items (10/40) – listening (implicit knowledge)

My dad had his lunch delivered to his office yesterday.

Correct/Incorrect

Free writing task

Examples from BNC

Controlled for length

Methodology

Pre and post tests

Forward digit-span

Phonological loop

Plus-minus task

Switching

Keep-track task

Updating

Stroop task

inhibition

Methodology

WM tests

Functions of the CE

Data analysis

Methodology

Eye-tracking data

Total fixation duration on AOIs (TFD)

Difference between observed and expected

total fixation duration – as a proportion of the

whole page based on the number of syllables

(ΔOE)

WM test data

Pre/post test data

Preliminary analyses

Groups comparable in terms of WM

abilities

Correlational analysis of WM test scores

Factor analysis – composite score for

Keep-track, Stroop and Digit-span

Keep-

track

Plus-

Minus

Stroop

Digit span .818** .112 -.530**

Keep-track .119 -.455**

Plus-Minus -.069

Results

How is the functioning of WM including

both phonological loop and central

executive functions related to the change

in knowledge of the target grammatical

construction ‘causative had’ in different

input conditions?

Results

Research question 1

Correlational analysis

Results

Whole sample

SR gain

score

GJ gain

score

Digit

Span

Spearman rho .570* .648*

p <.001 <.001

Keep

Track

Spearman rho .519* .576*

p <.001 <.001

Stroop Spearman rho -.568* -.547*

p <.001 <.001

Results

Composite WM score vs SR

gain score – Spearman rho

Results

Composite WM score vs GJ

gain score – Spearman rho

Results

Influence of WM across groups (SR) –

multiregression analysis

Instruction to

pay attention

interaction effect between the treatment condition and the composite WM score (Wald χ2 = 23.089, p <.001)

the unenhanced group statistically different from enhanced+instructions (β=1.105, p <.001) and the enhanced+instructions+explanation group (β=.973, p <.001).

Results

Influence of WM across groups

(GJ) – multiregression analysis

How the functioning of the WM including

both phonological loop and central

executive functions is related to the

attention paid to target items?

Results

Research question 2

Results

Correlational analysis

Digit

Span

Keep

track

Stroop

Mean

TFD

Spearman

rho

.250 .279 -.307*

p .097 .064 .040

Mean

ΔOE

Spearman

rho

.327* .394* -.310*

p .028 .007 .038

Results

Composite WM score vs TFD &

DOE – Spearman rho

Results

Influence of WM across groups (TFD) –

multiregression analysis

Instruction to pay

attention

interaction effect

(Wald χ2 = 34.49, p

<.001)

unenhanced group

statistically different from

enhanced+ instructions

(β=.274, p=.042) and

enhanced+ instructions+

explanation groups (β=.723,

p <.001).

Results

Influence of WM across groups (DOE) –

multiregression analysis

Instruction to

pay attention

unenhanced group

statistically different from

enhanced+ instructions

(β=.395, p=.001 ) and

enhanced+ instructions+

explanation groups

(β=.608, p <.001).

Interaction effect

Wald χ2 = 29.178, p

<.001

Discussion

Phonological loop

+

Central Executive

Attention regulation

Explicit input/ Implicit

knowledge

Implicit input/ Implicit

knowledge

Explicit input/ Explicit

knowledge

Linck, Osthus, Koeth and Bunting (2013)

Ellis & Sinclair (1996)

Robinson (2005)

Implicit input/ Explicit

knowledge

Ahmadian (2015)

√

√

√

√

√

Thank you

Baddeley, A.D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.

Baralt, M. (2015). Working memory capacity, cognitive complexity and L2 recasts in online language teaching. In Z. Wen, M. Borges & A. McNeill (Eds.). Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 248-269). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Ellis, N.C., & Sinclair, S.G. (1996). Working memory in the acquisition of vocabulary and syntax: putting language in good order. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 49A (1), 234-250.

Erçetin, G. & Alptekin, C. (2013). The explicit/implicit knowledge distinction and working memory: Implications for second-language reading comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 727-753.

Grey, S., Williams, J.N., & Rebuschat, P. (2015). Individual differences in incidental language learning: Phonological working memory, learning styles, and personality. Learning and Individual Differences 38, 44–53.

Hassin, R. R., Bargh, J. A., Engell, A. D., & McCulloch, K. C. (2009). Implicit working memory. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 665–678.

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Henry Holt. Juffs, A. (2005). The influence of first language on the processing of wh-movement in English as a second language.

Second Language Research 21(2), 121–151. Juffs, A. (2006). Working memory, second language acquisition and low-educated second language and literacy

learners. Low-educated adult second language and literacy acquisition. Proceedings of the Inaugural Symposium. Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics, Occasional Series, 89–104.

Koch, C. & Tsuchiya, N. (2006). Attention and consciousness: two distinct brain processes. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 11(1), 16-22.

Linck, J.A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J.T. & Bunting, M.F. (2013). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1-23.

Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A. & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181-210). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Martin, K.I. & Ellis, N.C. (2012). The roles of phonological short-term memory and working memory in l2 grammar and vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34, 379– 413.

Max Velmans, G. (2009). How to define consciousness—and how not to define consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies 16(5), 139-156.

Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review 83, 435-450. Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength, and frequency effects in implicit artificial grammar and incidental

L2 learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton and Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 235–268.

References

Santamaria, K. & Sunderman, G. (2015). Working memory in processing instruction: The acquisition of French

clitics. In Z. Wen, M. Borges & A. McNeill (Eds.). Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 205-223). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Saggara, N. (2007). From CALL to face-to-face interaction: the effect of computer-delivered recasts and working memory on L2 development. In A. Mackey (Ed.). Conversational interaction in second language

acquisition (pp. 229-248). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sagarra, N., & Herschensohn, J. (2010) The role of proficiency and working memory in gender and number

agreement processing in L1 and L2 Spanish. Lingua, 120, 2022–2039. Soto, D., & Silvanto, J. (2014). Reappraising the relationship between working memory and conscious

awareness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 520-525. Tagarelli, K.M., Borges Mota, M. & Rebuschat, P. (2011). The role of working memory in implicit and explicit

language learning. In L. Carlson, C. Holscher & T. Shipley (Eds.). Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 2016-2066). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory

and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 171-196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory capacity and fluid abilities: Examining the correlation between operation span and raven. Intelligence, 33, 67– 81.

Williams, J.N., & Lovatt, P. (2003). Phonological memory and rule learning. Language Learning, 53 (1), 67-121

References