Eye Movements and Lexical Ambiguity Resolution: Investigating the Subordinate-Bias Effect

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 335-350

  Sereno, Sara C ^a   O'Donnell, Patrick J ^a   Rayner, Keith ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

Ambiguity; Context; Eye movements; Lexical access; Subordinate bias effect

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPREHENSION; DECISION MAKING; EYE MOVEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; READING; RECOGNITION; REFERENCE VALUE; SEMANTICS; VISION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COMPREHENSION; DECISION MAKING; EYE MOVEMENTS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; READING; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); REFERENCE VALUES; SEMANTICS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 33747190810     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.335     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Balota, D. A. (1990). The role of meaning in word recognition. In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d'Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 9-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Binder, K. S. (2003). Sentential and discourse topic effects on lexical ambiguity processing: An eye-movement examination. Memory & Cognition, 31, 690-702.
3. Binder, K. S., & Morris, R. K. (1995). Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: Effects of prior encounter and discourse topic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1186-1196.
4. Binder, K. S., & Rayner, K. (1998). Contextual strength does not modulate the subordinate bias effect: Evidence from eye fixations and self-paced reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 271-276.
5. Binder, K. S., & Rayner, K. (1999). Does contextual strength modulate the subordinate bias effect? A reply to Kellas and Vu. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 518-522.
6. Borowsky, R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1996). Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 63-85.
7. Dopkins, S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Lexical ambiguity and eye fixations in reading: A test of competing models of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 461-477.
8. Duffy, S. A., Kambe, G., & Rayner, K. (2001). The effect of prior disambiguating context on the comprehension of ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 27-43). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
9. Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429-446.
10. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Folk, J. R., & Morris, R. K. (2003). Effects of syntactic category assignment on lexical ambiguity resolution in reading: An eye movement analysis. Memory & Cognition, 31, 87-99.
12. Forster, K. I. (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In W. E. Cooper & E. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 27-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Francis, W. N., & Kučera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
14. Frisson, S., Rayner, K., & Pickering, M. J. (2005). Effects of contextual predictability and transitional probability on eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31, 862-877.
15. Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (1990). Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: Implications for attention and eye movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 417-429.
16. Hogaboam, T. W., & Perfetti, C. A. (1975). Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 256-274.
17. Hyönä, J. (1993). Effects of thematic and lexical priming on readers' eye movements. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 34, 293-304.
18. Inhoff, A. W., & Rayner, K. (1986). Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word frequency. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 431-439.
19. Jastrzembski, J. E. (1981). Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 278-305.
20. Joordens, S., & Besner, D. (1994). When banking on meaning is not (yet) money in the bank: Explorations in connectionist modeling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1051-1062.
21. Kambe, G., Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (2001). Global context effects on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Memory & Cognition, 29, 363-372.
22. Kawamoto, A. H., Farrar, W. T., & Kello, C. T. (1994). When two meanings are better than one: Modeling the ambiguity effect using a recurrent distributed network. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1233-1247.
23. Kellas, G., & Vu, H. (1999). Strength of context does modulate the subordinate bias effect: A reply to Binder and Rayner. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 511-517.
24. Lucas, M. (1999). Context effects in lexical access: A meta-analysis. Memory & Cognition, 27, 385-398.
25. Martin, C., Vu, H. Kellas, G., & Metcalf, K. (1999). Strength of discourse context as a determinant of the subordinate bias effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 52(A), 813-839.
26. McClelland, J. L. (1987). The case of interactionism in language processing. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 3-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. McDonald, S. A., & Shillcock, R. C. (2003a). Eye movements reveal the on-line computation of lexical probabilities during reading. Psychological Science, 14, 648-652.
28. McDonald, S. A., & Shillcock, R. C. (2003b). Low-level predictive inference in reading: The influence of transitional probabilities on eye movements. Vision Research, 43, 1735-1751.
29. Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review, 76, 165-178.
30. Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264-336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. (1993). The processing of homophonic homographs during reading: Evidence from eye movements studies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 251-271.
32. Pickering, M. J., & Frisson, S. (2001). Processing ambiguous verbs: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 556-573.
33. Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1990). Eye movements and lexical access. In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d'Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 143-163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Pulvermüller, F., Assadollahi, R., & Elbert, T. (2001). Neuromagnetic evidence for early semantic access in word recognition. European Journal of Neuroscience, 13, 201-205.
35. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422.
36. Rayner, K., Ashby, J., Pollatsek, A., & Reichle, E. D. (2004). The effects of frequency and predictability on eye fixations in reading: Implications for the E-Z Reader model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 720-732.
37. Rayner, K., Binder, K. S., & Duffy, S. A. (1999). Contextual strength and the subordinate bias effect: Comment on Martin, Vu, Kellas, and Metcalf. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 52(A), 841-852.
38. Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191-201.
39. Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 779-790.
40. Rayner, K., Pacht, J. M., & Duffy, S. A. (1994). Effects of prior encounter and global discourse bias on the processing of lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 527-544.
41. Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., Morris, R. K., Schmauder, A. R., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1989). Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, S121-S149.
42. Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., & Raney, G. E. (1996). Eye movement control in reading: A comparison of two types of models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1188-1200.
43. Rayner, K., & Well, A. D. (1996). Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 504-509.
44. Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (in press). Modeling the effects of lexical ambiguity on eye movements during reading. In R. P. G. van Compel, M. H. Fischer, W. S. Murray. & R. L. Hill (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on the mind and brain. Oxford, England: Elsevier.
45. Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2003). The E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 445-526.
46. Rodd, J. M., Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2004). Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition. Cognitive Science, 28, 89-104.
47. Rubenstein, H., Lewis, S. S., & Rubenstein, M. A. (1971). Homographic entries in the internal lexicon: Effects of systematicity and relative frequency of meanings. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 57-62.
48. Sereno, S. C. (1992). Early lexical effects when fixating a word in reading. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements and visual cognition: Scene perception and, reading (pp. 304-316). New York: Springer-Verlag.
49. Sereno, S. C. (1995). Resolution of lexical ambiguity: Evidence from an eye movement priming paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 582-595.
50. Sereno, S. C., Brewer, C. C., & O'Donnell, P. J. (2003). Context effects in word recognition: Evidence for early interactive processing. Psychological Science, 14, 328-333.
51. Sereno, S. C., Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. (1992). The effect of meaning frequency on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Psychological Science, 3, 296-300.
52. Sereno, S. C., & Rayner, K. (2000). Spelling-sound regularity effects on eye fixations in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 402-409.
53. Sereno, S. C., & Rayner, K. (2003). Measuring word recognition in reading: Eye movements and event-related potentials. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 489-493.
54. Sereno, S. C., Rayner, K., & Posner, M. I. (1998). Establishing a time-line of word recognition: Evidence from eye movements and event-related potentials. NeuroReport, 9, 2195-2200.
55. Simpson, G. B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 120-136.
56. Simpson, G. B. (1984). Lexical ambiguity and its role in models of word recognition. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 316-340.
57. Simpson, G. B., & Burgess, C. (1985). Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 28-39.
58. Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645-659.
59. Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1979). Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 427-440.
60. Twilley, L. C., & Dixon, P. (2000). Meaning resolution processes for words: A parallel independent model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 49-82.
61. Twilley, L. C., Dixon, P., Taylor, D., & Clark, K. (1994). University of Alberta norms of relative meaning frequency for 566 homographs. Memory & Cognition, 22, 111-126.
62. Vu, H., & Kellas, G. (1999). Contextual strength modulates the subordinate bias effect: Reply to Rayner. Binder, and Duffy. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 52(A), 853-855.
63. Vu, H., Kellas, G., Metcalf, K., & Herman, R. (2000). The influence of global discourse on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory & Cognition, 28, 236-252.
64. Vu, H., Kellas, G., Petersen, E., & Metcalf, K. (2003). Situation-evoking stimuli, domain of reference, and the incremental interpretation of lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 31, 1302-1315.
65. Wiley, J., & Rayner, K. (2000). Effects of titles on the processing of text and lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1011-1021.
66. Zeno, S. M., Ivens, S. H., Hillard, R. T., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The educator's word frequency guide. Brewster. NJ: Touchstone Applied Science Associates.