SuperRefractory Position Epilepticus in youngsters Any Retrospective Cohort Study

We conclude that participants are adept at learning polysemous words that vary along multiple dimensions. Current results are consistent with the idea that ambiguous meanings of a word compete, but polysemous meanings instead reinforce one another. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).Most language experiences take place at the level of multiple sentences. However, previous studies of second language (L2) comprehension have typically focused on lexical- and sentence-level processing. Our study addresses this gap by examining auditory discourse comprehension in 32 English/French bilinguals. We tested the prediction of the noisy channel model (Futrell & Gibson, 2017) that bilinguals will rely more on top-down, discourse-level cues in L2 because these are common across languages, as opposed to the language-specific associations of an often weaker L2. We further hypothesized that these effects could be influenced by individual differences, such that participants with lower L2 proficiency or working memory would have more difficulty building and maintaining discourse context. Specifically, we measured the N400 response, an index of automatic semantic processing. Participants heard three-sentence stories with prime and target words in the final sentence whose lexical association was manipulated, as was the congruence of the target with the preceding discourse. Overall, our results support the noisy channel model of language comprehension in a sample of highly proficient bilinguals. We observed larger N400 effects of discourse congruence than lexical association, and the difference between these 2 conditions was greater in the L2 than in the L1. Additionally, the effects of lexical association were limited to the L1 and predicted by individual differences in language dominance but not working memory. These findings suggest that bilinguals do indeed make greater use of top-down, supralinguistic information in their L2 compared with their L1. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).Understanding speech in adverse conditions is affected by experience-a familiar voice is substantially more intelligible than an unfamiliar voice when competing speech is present, even if the content of the speech (the words) are controlled. This familiar-voice benefit is observed consistently, but its underpinnings are unclear Do familiar voices simply attract more attention, are they inherently more intelligible because they have predictable acoustic characteristics, or are they more intelligible in a mixture because they are more resistant to interference from other sounds? We recruited pairs of native English-speaking participants who were friends or romantic couples. Didox research buy Participants reported words from closed-set English sentences (i.e., Oldenburg Matrix Test; Zokoll et al., 2013) spoken by a familiar talker (the participant's partner) or an unfamiliar talker. We compared 3 masker conditions that are acoustically similar but differ in their demands (1) English Oldenburg sentences; (2) Oldenburg sentences in a language incomprehensible to the listener (Russian or Spanish); and (3) unintelligible signal-correlated noise. We adaptively varied the target-to-masker ratio to obtain 50% speech reception thresholds. We observed a large (∼5 dB) familiar-voice benefit when the target and masker were both English sentences. This benefit was attenuated (to ∼2 dB) when the masker was in an incomprehensible language and disappeared when it was signal-correlated noise. These results suggest that familiar voices did not benefit intelligibility because they were more predictable or because they attracted greater attention, rather familiarity with a target voice reduced interference from maskers that are linguistically similar to the target. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).Participants gave recognition judgments for short lists of pictures of everyday objects. Pictures in a given list were an equal mixture of three types that varied according to the way they were used as targets and foils earlier in the same session. Under consistent-mapping (CM), targets and foils never switch roles; under varied-mapping (VM), targets and foils switch roles randomly across trials; whereas all-new (AN) items are novel on each trial of the experiment. Past research has shown that markedly enhanced performance occurs in CM conditions, leading to conclusions that item-response learning takes place in CM, perhaps automatically. However, almost all past research has compared CM, VM, and AN performance in between-blocks designs in which participants may adopt different cognitive strategies and criterion settings across the conditions. The present mixed-list design holds constant the strategy and criterion settings that are used for CM, VM, and AN items, and produced patterns of performance dramatically different than those observed in pure-list control conditions. We develop an extended version of an exemplar-based random-walk model of probe recognition to account for the major qualitative effects in the data. The data and the modeling provide evidence for strong item-response learning for CM foils but weak item-response learning for CM targets. We consider possible explanations for these effects in our General Discussion. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).Although the psychological impacts of cyberbullying victimization (CBV) have been documented, research is inconclusive about the role of contextual factors in the association between CBV and student engagement. Sampling 16,237 adolescents from 43 schools in Delaware, we used multilevel modeling to test how CBV was associated with emotional and cognitive-behavioral engagement at both the student and school levels, with the control for demographic factors and traditional bullying victimization (TBV). We also examined the moderating effects of school climate and grade level on the association between CBV and student engagement. CBV had a small but significant positive association with emotional engagement and a small but significant negative association with cognitive-behavioral engagement. School-level climate intensified the negative association between student-level CBV and cognitive-behavioral engagement and mitigated the positive association between student-level school climate and emotional engagement. The positive association between CBV and emotional engagement was stronger for high school than middle school students, whereas the negative association between CBV and cognitive-behavioral engagement was stronger for middle than high school students.