Energetic Arousal and Language

Abstract

Objective:

The author examines the relationship between energetic arousal (EA) and the processing of sentences containing natural-language quantifiers.

Background:

Previous studies and theories have shown that energy may differentially affect various cognitive functions. Recent investigations devoted to quantifiers strongly support the theory that various types of quantifiers involve different cognitive functions in the sentence–picture verification task.

Method:

In the present study, 201 students were presented with a sentence–picture verification task consisting of simple propositions containing a quantifier that referred to the color of a car on display. Color pictures of cars accompanied the propositions. In addition, the level of participants’ EA was measured before and after the verification task.

Results:

It was found that EA and performance on proportional quantifiers (e.g., “More than half of the cars are red”) are in an inverted U-shaped relationship.

Conclusion:

This result may be explained by the fact that proportional sentences engage working memory to a high degree, and previous models of EA–cognition associations have been based on the assumption that tasks that require parallel attentional and memory processes are best performed when energy is moderate.

Application:

The research described in the present article has several applications, as it shows the optimal human conditions for verbal comprehension. For instance, it may be important in workplace design to control the level of arousal experienced by office staff when work is mostly related to the processing of complex texts. Energy level may be influenced by many factors, such as noise, time of day, or thermal conditions.

Keywords

energetic arousal language quantifiers working memory attention

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

K. J.

(1994). Impulsivity, caffeine, and task difficulty: A within-subjects test of the Yerkes-Dodson law. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 813–829.

Calix

R. A.

Javadpour

Knapp

G. M.

(2012). Detection of affective states from text and speech for real-time human–computer interaction. Human Factors, 54, 530–545.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cohen

(1983). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dickman

S. J.

(2002). Dimensions of arousal: Wakefulness and vigor. Human Factors, 44, 429–442.

Engle

R. W.

Tuholski

S. W.

Laughlin

J. E.

Conway

A. R. A.

(1999). Working memory, short-term memory and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309–331.

Helton

W. S.

Matthews

Warm

J. S.

(2009). Stress state mediation between environmental variables and performance: The case of noise and vigilance. Acta Psychologica, 130, 204–213.

Helton

W. S.

Shaw

Warm

J. S.

Matthews

Hancock

P. A.

(2008). Effects of warned and unwarned demand transitions on vigilance performance and stress. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 21, 173–184.

Humphreys

M. S.

Revelle

(1984). Personality, motivation, and performance: A theory of the relationship between individual differences and information processing. Psychological Review, 91, 153–184.

10.

Jankowski

K. S.

(2012). Morningness-eveningness and temperament: The regulative theory of temperament perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 734–739.

11.

Jankowski

K. S.

Zajenkowski

(2012). Mood as a result of temperament profile: Predictions from the Regulative Theory of Temperament. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 559–562.

12.

Just

Carpenter

(1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.

13.

Logie

R. H.

(2011). The functional organisation and the capacity limits of working memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 240–245.

14.

Martin

E. A.

Kerns

J. G.

(2011). The influence of positive mood on different aspects of cognitive control. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 265–279.

15.

Matthews

Campbell

S. E.

(2010). Dynamic relationships between stress states and working memory. Cognition and Emotion, 24, 357–373.

16.

Matthews

Davies

D. R.

Westerman

S. J.

Stammers

R. B.

(2000). Human performance: cognition, stress, and individual differences. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis.

17.

Matthews

Deary

Whiteman

(2009). Personality traits. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Matthews

Dorn

Hoyes

T. W.

Davies

D. R.

Glendon

A. I.

Taylor

R. G.

(1998). Driver stress and performance on a driving simulator. Human Factors, 40, 136–149.

19.

Matthews

Fellner

A. N.

(2012). The energetics of emotional intelligence. In Eysenck

M. W.

Fajkowska

Maruszewski

(Eds.), Warsaw Lectures on personality, emotion, and cognition (pp. 13–33). Clinton Corners, NY: Eliot Werner.

20.

Matthews

Jones

D. M.

Chamberlain

A. G.

(1990). Refining the measurement of mood: The UWIST mood adjective checklist. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 17–42.

21.

Matthews

Warm

J. S.

Reinerman

L. E.

Langheim

L. K.

Saxby

D. J.

(2010). Task engagement, attention and executive control. In Gruszka

Matthews

Szymura

(Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in cognition: Attention, memory and executive control (pp. 205–230). New York, NY: Springer.

22.

McMillan

Clark

Moore

Devita

Grossman

(2005). Neural basis for generalized quantifiers comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 43, 1729–1737.

23.

Nęcka

(1997). Attention, working memory and arousal: Concepts apt to account for “the process of intelligence.” In Matthews

(Ed.), Cognitive science perspectives on personality and emotion (pp. 503–554). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

24.

Partala

Surakka

(2004). The effects of affective interventions in human–computer interaction. Interacting With Computers, 16, 295–309.

25.

Pietroski

Lidz

Hunter

Halberda

(2009). The meaning of “most”: Semantics, numerosity, and psychology. Mind and Language, 24, 554–585.

26.

Revelle

Humphreys

M. S.

Simon

Gilliland

(1980). The interactive effect of personality, time of day, and caffeine: A test of the arousal model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, l–31.

27.

Shackman

A. J.

Sarinopoulos

Maxwell

J. S.

Pizzagalli

D. A.

Lavric

Davidson

R. J.

(2006). Anxiety selectively disrupts visuospatial working memory. Emotion, 6, 40–61.

28.

Szymanik

(2007). A comment on a neuroimaging study of natural language quantifier comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 45, 2158–2160.

29.

Szymanik

Zajenkowski

(2009). Improving methodology of quantifier comprehension experiments. Neuropsychologia, 47, 2682–2683.

30.

Szymanik

Zajenkowski

(2010). Comprehension of simple quantifiers. Empirical evaluation of a computational model. Cognitive Science, 34, 521–532.

31.

Szymanik

Zajenkowski

(2011). Contribution of working memory in the parity and proportional judgments. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 25, 189–206.

32.

Thayer

R. E.

(1989). The biopsychology of mood and arousal. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

33.

van Benthem

(1986). Essays in logical semantics. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel.

34.

Warm

J. S.

Parasuraman

Matthews

(2008). Vigilance requires hard mental work and is stressful. Human Factors, 50, 433–441.

35.

Yerkes

R. M.

Dodson

J. D.

(1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459–482.

36.

Zajenkowski

Goryńska

Winiewski

(2012). Variability of the relationship between personality and mood. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 858–861.

37.

Zajenkowski

Styła

Szymanik

(2011). A computational approach to quantifiers as an explanation for some language impairments in schizophrenia. Journal of Communication Disorders, 44, 595–600.