Linguistic and Perceptual Symbol Representation Comparison: Behavioral and Event-Related Potential (ERP) Evidence for Their Effects on Foreign Language Vocabulary Acquisition
This study compared the influence of linguistic symbol and perceptual symbol representations on vocabulary memory encoding and recognition during foreign language vocabulary learning through behavioral and electroencephalography (EEG) experimental techniques, aiming to investigate the mechanism of semantic representation on vocabulary acquisition. The behavioral results indicated that there was no significant difference in the subjective judgments of vocabulary learning effectiveness between participants under linguistic symbol and perceptual symbol representations. However, the latter exhibited a higher accuracy rate in vocabulary recognition compared to the former. The EEG results revealed that, during the vocabulary encoding stage, perceptual symbol representations elicited a more correct late positive component (LPC) compared to linguistic symbol representations. In the vocabulary recognition stage, perceptual symbol representations induced a larger N400 component, and EEG time-frequency analysis demonstrated a more pronounced suppression of μ-band and enhancement of θ-band power under these conditions. The comprehensive findings suggest that, compared to linguistic symbol representations, which facilitate semantic processing but are non-modal, perceptual symbol representations deepen the encoding depth of vocabulary in the late stage and enhance the vivid recognition of vocabulary through perceptual simulation, utilizing multimodal information. This, in turn, promotes semantic retrieval during the recognition stage, ultimately implicitly improving vocabulary learning effectiveness.
Institutions
- University of Jinan (CN)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Applied & Educational Psychology
- Published
- 2025-01-01
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.23977/appep.2025.060310
- Primary Topic
- Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00