Second language experience impacts first language irony comprehension among bilingual adults.

Recently, core components of irony processing (e.g., mental-state reasoning, executive control, and metalinguistic awareness) have been tentatively linked to bilingual experience. Thus, we investigated whether bilingual experience modulates irony comprehension during first language (L1) reading and also how bilingual adults comprehend irony in positive versus negative contexts (i.e., ironic compliments vs. criticisms, respectively). We deliver 3 main findings. First, bilinguals are faster at processing ironic criticisms than ironic compliments, and they find ironic criticisms more sensible than ironic compliments in their L1, much like past findings among monolinguals. Second, individual differences in bilingual experience modulate comprehension of ironic statements. Specifically, readers with high global second language (L2) proficiency find ironic statements more sensible than readers with low global L2 proficiency, regardless of the valence of the preceding context. Third, individual differences in global L2 proficiency further predict the speed of L1 irony comprehension: following a positive scenario, greater global L2 proficiency patterns with faster processing of irony compared to literal statements. Together, these data suggest that second language experience may be linked to irony processing in the first language. While the precise mechanism underlying this relationship remains open, potential sources may be rooted in flexible social cognition or executive functions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Concurrent Validity of Power From Three On-Water Rowing Instrumentation Systems and a Concept2 Ergometer.

Purpose: Instrumentation systems are increasingly used in rowing to measure training intensity and performance but have not been validated for measures of power. In this study, the concurrent validity of Peach PowerLine (six units), Nielsen-Kellerman EmPower (five units), Weba OarPowerMeter (three units), Concept2 model D ergometer (one unit), and a custom-built reference instrumentation system (Reference System; one unit) were investigated. Methods: Eight female and seven male rowers [age, 21 ± 2.5 years; rowing experience, 7.1 ± 2.6 years, mean ± standard deviation (SD)] performed a 30-s maximal test and a 7 × 4-min incremental test once per week for 5 weeks. Power per stroke was extracted concurrently from the Reference System (via chain force and velocity), the Concept2 itself, Weba (oar shaft-based), and either Peach or EmPower (oarlock-based). Differences from the Reference System in the mean (representing potential error) and the stroke-to-stroke variability (represented by its SD) of power per stroke for each stage and device, and between-unit differences, were estimated using general linear mixed modeling and interpreted using rejection of non-substantial and substantial hypotheses. Results: Potential error in mean power was decisively substantial for all devices (Concept2, -11 to -15%; Peach, -7.9 to -17%; EmPower, -32 to -48%; and Weba, -7.9 to -16%). Between-unit differences (as SD) in mean power lacked statistical precision but were substantial and consistent across stages (Peach, ∼5%; EmPower, ∼7%; and Weba, ∼2%). Most differences from the Reference System in stroke-to-stroke variability of power were possibly or likely trivial or small for Peach (-3.0 to -16%), and likely or decisively substantial for EmPower (9.7-57%), and mostly decisively substantial for Weba (61-139%) and the Concept2 (-28 to 177%). Conclusion: Potential negative error in mean power was evident for all devices and units, particularly EmPower. Stroke-to-stroke variation in power showed a lack of measurement sensitivity (apparent smoothing) that was minor for Peach but larger for the Concept2, whereas EmPower and Weba added random error. Peach is therefore recommended for measurement of mean and stroke power.

How does the pitch and pattern of a signal affect auditory arousal thresholds?

How arousal thresholds vary with different sounds is a critical issue for emergency awakenings, especially as sleepers are dying in fires despite having a working smoke alarm. Previous research shows that the current high-pitched (3000+ Hz) smoke alarm signal is significantly less effective than an alternative signal, the 520 Hz square wave, in all populations tested. However, as the number of sounds tested has been small further research is needed. Here we measured auditory arousal thresholds (AATs) across signals with a range of characteristics to determine the most effective waking signal. Thirty-nine young adults participated over three nights. In Part A, nine signals were presented in stage 4 sleep with ascending decibel levels. Signals were short beeps in the low- to mid-frequency range with different spectral complexities: square waves, pure tones, whoops and white noise. Part B manipulated temporal patterns, inserting silences of 0, 10 and 21 s after each 12 s of beeps. It was found that the low-frequency (400 and 520 Hz) square waves yielded significantly lower AATs than the alternatives. A trend was found across the three temporal manipulations, with a 10 s intervening silence showing some advantage. These findings support earlier research indicating that the best sound for awakening from deep sleep is a low-frequency square wave. It is argued that the signal with the lowest response threshold when awake may be the same as the most arousing signal when asleep, especially where the sleeper processes the signal as meaningful.