Author(s)

Deng Yingqi ¹

Affiliation(s)

¹ University of Jinan, Jinan, Shandong, 250000, China

Corresponding Author

Deng Yingqi

ABSTRACT

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.

KEYWORDS

Semantic Representation; Foreign Language Vocabulary Acquisition; Linguistic Symbols; Perceptual Symbols; EEG

CITE THIS PAPER

Deng Yingqi, Linguistic and Perceptual Symbol Representation Comparison: Behavioral and Event-Related Potential (ERP) Evidence for Their Effects on Foreign Language Vocabulary Acquisition. Applied & Educational Psychology (2025) Vol. 6: 67-73. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.23977/appep.2025.060310.

REFERENCES

[1] Borghesani, V.,& Piazza, M.(2017).The neuro-cognitive representations of symbols: The case of concrete words. Neuropsychologia,105,4−17.
[2] Baumeister, J. C., Foroni, F., Conrad, M., Rumiati, R. I., & Winkielman, P. (2017). Embodiment and emotional memory in first vs. second language. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 394
[3] Brunsdon, V.E.A., Bradford, E. E. F., & Ferguson, H. J. (2019). Sensorimotor mu rhythm during action observation changes across the lifespan independently from social cognitive processes. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 38, 100659.
[4] Capone, N. C., & McGregor, K. K. (2005). The effect of semantic representation on toddlers' word retrieval. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 48(6), 1468−1480.
[5] Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge. 
[6] Comesana, M., Perea, M., Piñeiro, A., & Fraga, I. (2009). Vocabulary teaching strategies and conceptual representations of words in L2 in children: Evidence with novice learners. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104(1), 22−33.
[7] Eschmann, K. C. J., Bader, R., & Mecklinger, A. (2020). Improving episodic memory: Frontal-midline theta neurofeedback training increases source memory performance. Neuroimage, 222, 117219.
[8] Guo, T., & Peng, D. (2002). The accessing mechanism of the less proficient Chinese–English bilinguals' conceptual representation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35(1), 23–28. 
[9] Guo Taomei, Peng Danling (2002). The semantic access mechanism of second language for non proficient bilingual Chinese English speakers. Journal of Psychology, 35 (1), 23-28.

Sponsors, Associates, and Links

---

• Advances in Educational Technology and Psychology
  
  
• Curriculum and Teaching Methodology
  
  
• Transactions on Comparative Education
  
  
• Advances in Vocational and Technical Education
  
  
• Adult and Higher Education