The effect of semantic distance in yes/no and go/no-go semantic categorization tasks

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 100-113

  Siakaluk, Paul D ^a   Buchanan, Lori ^b   Westbury, Chris ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; SEMANTICS; STIMULUS RESPONSE; VISUAL MEMORY; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 0037233425     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03196086     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. ABRAMS, R. A. (1995). Psych/Lab experimental psychology software [Computer software]. St. Louis: Psych/Lab Software. (Available from Washington University Web site: ttp://www.artsci.wustl.edu/rabrams/psychlab/).
2. ANDREWS, S. (1992). Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Lexical similarity or orthographic redundancy? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 234-254.
3. ANDREWS, S. (1997). The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: Resolving neighborhood conflicts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 439-461.
4. ANDREWS, S., & HEATHCOTE, A. (2001). Distinguishing common and task-specific processes in word identification: A matter of some moment? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 514-544.
5. BAAYEN, R. H., PIEPENBROCK, R., & GULIKERS, L. (1995). The CELEX Lexical Database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
6. BALOTA, D. A., & CHUMBLEY, J. I. (1984). Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 10, 340-357.
7. BALOTA, D. A., & CHUMBLEY, J. I. (1990). Where are the effects of frequency in visual word recognition tasks? Right where we said they were! Comment on Monsell, Doyle, and Haggard (1989). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 231-237.
8. BALOTA, D. A., FERRARO, F. R., & CONNOR, L. T. (1991). On the early influence of meaning in word recognition: A review of the literature. In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings (pp. 187-222). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. BALOTA, D. A., PILOTTI, M., & CORTESE, M. J. (2001). Subjective frequency estimates for 2,938 monosyllabic words. Memory & Cognition, 29, 639-647.
10. BOROWSKY, R., & MASSON, M. E. J. (1996). Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 63-85.
11. BRADLEY, D. A., & FORSTER, K. I. (1987). A reader's view oflistening. Cognition, 25, 103-134.
12. BUCHANAN, L., WESTBURY, C., & BURGESS, C. (2001). Characterizing semantic space: Neighborhood effects in word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 531-544.
13. BURGESS, C. (1998). From simple associations to the building blocks of language: Modeling meaning in memory with the HAL model. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 30, 188-198.
14. BURGESS, C., LIVESAY, K., & LUND, K. (1998). Explorations in context space: Words, sentences, discourse. Discourse Processes, 25, 211-257.
15. BURGESS, C., & LUND, K. (2000). The dynamics of meaning in memory. In E. Dietrich & A. B. Markman (Eds.), Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual and representational change in humans and machines (pp. 117-156). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. CARREIRAS, M., PEREA, M., & GRAINGER, J. (1997). Effects of orthographic neighborhood in visual word recognition: Cross-task comparisons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 857-871.
17. CHIARELLO, C., NUDING, S., & POLLOCK, A. (1988). Lexical decision and naming asymmetries: Influence of response selection and response bias. Brain & Language, 34, 302-314.
18. COLTHEART, M. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading tasks. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Strategies of information processing (pp. 151-216). New York: Academic Press.
19. COLTHEART, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 497-505.
20. COLTHEART, M., DAVELAAR, E., JONASSON, J. T., & BESNER, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 535-555). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. COLTHEART, M., RASTLE, K., PERRY, C., LANGDON, R., & ZIEGLER, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204-256.
22. CONLEY, P., BURGESS, C., & DECKER, C. (2001, November). An examination of semantic density and familiarity in semantic priming. Poster presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Orlando, FL.
23. CORTESE, M. J., SIMPSON, G. B., & WOOLSEY, S. (1997). Effects ofassociation and imageability on phonological mapping. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 226-231.
24. FORSTER, K. I. (1999, November). Beyond lexical decision: Lexical access in categorization tasks. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles.
25. FORSTER, K. I., & SHEN, D. (1996). No enemies in the neighborhood: Absence of inhibitory effects in lexical decision and semantic categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 696-713.
26. GIBBS, P., & VAN ORDEN, G. C. (1998). Pathway selection's utility for control of word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1162-1187.
27. GORDON, B., & CARAMAZZA, A. (1982). Lexical decision for open- and closed-class words: Failure to replicate differential frequency sensitivity. Brain & Language, 15, 143-160.
28. GOTTLOB, L. R., GOLDINGER, S. D., STONE, G. O., & VAN ORDEN, G. C. (1999). Reading homographs: Orthographic, phonologic, and semantic dynamics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 561-574.
29. GRAINGER, J., & JACOBS, A. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review, 103, 518-565.
30. GREEN, P. E. (1978). Analyzing multivariate data. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.
31. HINO, Y., & LUPKER, S. J. (1996). Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: An alternative to lexical access accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 22, 1331-1356.
32. HINO, Y., & LUPKER, S. J. (1998). The effects of word frequency for Japanese Kana and Kanji words in naming and lexical decision: Can the dual-route model save the lexical selection account? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1431-1453.
33. HINO, Y., & LUPKER, S. J. (2000). The effects of word frequency and spelling-to-sound regularity in naming with and without lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 166-183.
34. HINO, Y., LUPKER, S. J., & PEXMAN, P. M. (2002). Ambiguity and synonymy effects in lexical decision, naming, and semantic categorization tasks: Interactions between orthography, phonology, and semantics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 686-713.
35. JAMES, C. T. (1975). The role of semantic information in lexical decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 1, 130-136.
36. KELLAS, G., FERRARO, F. R., & SIMPSON, G. B. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and the timecourse of attentional allocation in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 14, 601-609.
37. KROLL, J. F., & MERVIS, J. S. (1986). Lexical access for concrete and abstract words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 12, 92-107.
38. LANDAUER, T. K., & DUMAIS, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
39. LUND, K., & BURGESS, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 203-208.
40. MCRAE, K., DE SA, V. R., & SEIDENBERG, M. S. (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 99-130.
41. MEASSO, G., & ZAIDEL, E. (1990). Effect of response programming on hemispheric differences in lexical decision. Neuropsychologia, 28, 635-646.
42. MONSELL, S. (1990). Frequency effects in lexical tasks: Reply to Balota and Chumbley. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 335-339.
43. MONSELL, S., DOYLE, M. C., & HAGGARD, P. N. (1989). Effects of frequency on visual word recognition tasks: Where are they? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 43-7.
44. NELSON, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & SCHREIBER, T. A. (1994). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme and word fragment norms. Unpublished manuscript.
45. PECHER, D. (2001). Perception is a two-way junction: Feedback semantics in word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 545-551.
46. PEDHAZUR, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
47. PEREA, M., FERNANDEZ, L., & CARREIRAS, M. (1998, December). Efectos secuenciales en la tarea de decisión léxica [Sequential effects in the lexical decision task]. Paper presented at the II Conference of the Spanish Experimental Psychology Society, Granada.
48. PEREA, M., ROSA, E., & GOMEZ, C. (2002). Is the go/no-go lexical decision task an alternative to the yes/no lexical decision task? Memory & Cognition, 30, 34-45.
49. PEXMAN, P. M., & LUPKER, S. J. (1999). Ambiguity and visual word recognition: Can feedback explain both homophone and polysemy effects? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 323-334.
50. PEXMAN, P. M., LUPKER, S. J., & HINO, Y. (2002). The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: Number-of-features effects in lexical decision and naming tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 542-549.
51. PEXMAN, P. M., LUPKER, S. J., & JARED, D. (2001). Homophone effects in lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 139-156.
52. PIERCEY, C. D., & JOORDENS, S. (2000). Turning an advantage into a disadvantage: Ambiguity effects in lexical decision versus reading tasks. Memory & Cognition, 28, 657-666.
53. PLAUT, D. C., MCCLELLAND, J. L., SEIDENBERG, M. S., & PATTERSON, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56-115.
54. SCHNEIDER, W. (1990). Micro Experimental Laboratory [Computer software], Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.
55. SEARS, C. R., HINO, Y., & LUPKER, S. J. (1999). Orthographic neighbourhood effects in parallel distributed processing models. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 220-229.
56. SEARS, C. R., LUPKER, S. J., & HINO, Y. (1995). Neighborhood size and neighborhood frequency effects in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 876-900.
57. SEARS, C. R., LUPKER, S. J., & HINO, Y. (1999). Orthographic neighborhood effects in perceptual identification and semantic categorization tasks: A test of the multiple read-out model. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 1537-1554.
58. SEIDENBERG, M. S., & McCLELLAND, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 521-568.
59. STONE, G. O., VANHOY, M., & VAN ORDEN, G. C. (1997). Perception is a two-way street: Feedforward and feedback phonology in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory & Language, 36, 337-359.
60. STRAIN, E., PATTERSON, K., & SEIDENBERG, M. S. (1995). Semantic effects in single word naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1140-1154.
61. TOGLIA, M. P., & BATTIG, W. F. (1978). Handbook of semantic word norms. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
62. ZIEGLER, J. C., MONTANT, M., & JACOBS, A. M. (1997). The feedback consistency effect in lexical decision and naming. Journal of Memory & Language, 37, 533-554.