Semantic anomalies at the borderline of consciousness: An eye-tracking investigation

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 61, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 232-239

  Bohan, Jason ^a   Sanford, Anthony ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; AWARENESS; COMPREHENSION; CONSCIOUSNESS; EYE MOVEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; READING; SEMANTICS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; AWARENESS; COMPREHENSION; CONSCIOUSNESS; EYE MOVEMENTS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; READING; SEMANTICS;

EID: 37849052485     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470210701617219     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Baker, L., & Wagner, J. L. (1987). Evaluating information for truthfulness: The effects of logical subordination. Memory & Cognition, 15, 247-255.
2. Barton, S. B., & Sanford, A. J. (1993). A case-study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & Cognition, 21, 477-487.
3. Braze, D., Shankweiler, D., Ni, W., & Palumbo, L. C. (2002). Reader's eye movements distinguish anomalies of form and content. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 25-44.
4. Bredart, S., & Modolo, K. (1988). Moses strikes again: Focalization effects on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychologica, 67, 135-144.
5. Daneman, M., Lennertz, T., & Hannon, B. (2007). Shallow semantic processing and cognitive processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 85-105.
6. Daneman, M., Reingold, E. M., & Davidson, M. (1995). Time-course of phonological activation during reading: Evidence from eye-fixation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 884-898.
7. Erickson, T. A., & Matteson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 540-552.
8. Ferreira, F., Ferraro, V., & Bailey, K. G. D. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11-15.
9. Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2001). Susceptibility to semantic illusions: An individual-differences perspective. Memory & Cognition, 29, 449-461.
10. Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2004). Shallow processing of text: An individual-differences account. Discourse Processes, 37, 187-204.
11. Hollingworth, A., & Henderson, J. M. (2003). Testing a conceptual locus for the inconsistent object change detection advantage in real-world scenes. Memory & Cognition, 31, 930-940.
12. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203-205.
13. Reder, L., & Kusbit, G. W. (1991). Locus of the Moses Illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match? Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 385-406.
14. Sanford, A. J., & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing theevidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 382-386.
15. Sanford, A. J. S., Sanford, A. J., Molle, J., & Emmott, C. (2006). Shallow processing and attention capture in written and spoken discourse. Discourse Processes, 42, 109-130.
16. Sturt, P., Sanford, A. J., Stewart, A. J., & Dawydiak, E. (2004). Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 882-888.
17. Van Oostendorp, H. (1994). Text processing in terms of semantic cohesion monitoring. In H. Van Oostendorp & R.A. Zwaan (Eds.), Naturalistic text comprehension: Advances in discourse processes (pp. 35-55). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
18. Van Oostendorp, H., & de Mul, S. (1990). Moses beats Adam: A semantic relatedness effect on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychologica, 74, 35-46.
19. Vogel, E. K., Luck, S. J., & Shapiro, K. L. (1998). Electrophysiological evidence for a postperceptual locus of suppression during attentional blink. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1656-1674.