Automatic semantic feedback during visual word recognition

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 641-658

  Reimer, Jason F ^a   Lorsbach, Thomas C ^b   Bleakney, Dana M ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT OMAHA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; PHONETICS; SEMANTICS; VISUAL MEMORY; WORD RECOGNITION; AUTOMATISM; LINGUISTICS; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION; VISION;

AUTOMATISM; FEEDBACK; HUMANS; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SEMANTICS; VISUAL PERCEPTION; VOCABULARY;

EID: 45849148521     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/MC.36.3.641     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. BESNER, D., & SMITH, M. C. (1992). Models of visual word recognition: When obscuring the stimulus yields a clearer view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 468-482.
2. BOROWSKY, R., & BESNER, D. (1993). Visual word recognition: A multistage activation model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 813-840.
3. BROWN, M., & BESNER, D. (2002). Semantic priming: On the role of awareness in visual word recognition in the absence of an expectancy. Consciousness & Cognition, 11, 402-422.
4. BUCHANAN, L., & BESNER, D. (1993). Reading aloud: Evidence for the use of a whole word nonsemantic pathway. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 133-152.
5. COLLINS, A. M., & LOFTUS, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407-428.
6. 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.
7. DAVIS, C., CASTLES, A., & IAKOVIDIS, E. (1998). Masked homophone and pseudohomophone priming in adults and children. Language & Cognitive Processes, 13, 625-651.
8. DE GROOT, A. M. B. (1989). Representational aspects of word imageability and word frequency as assessed through word association. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 824-845.
9. DEN HEYER, K., BRIAND, K., & DANNENBRING, G. L. (1983). Strategic factors in a lexical-decision task: Evidence for automatic and attention-driven processes. Memory & Cognition, 11, 374-381.
10. EDWARDS, J. D., PEXMAN, P. M., & HUDSON, C. E. (2004). Exploring the dynamics of the visual word recognition system: Homophone effects in LDT and naming. Language & Cognitive Processes, 19, 503-532.
11. FARRAR, W. T., IV, VAN ORDEN, G. C., & HAMOUZ, V. (2001). When SOFA primes TOUCH: Interdependence of spelling, sound, and meaning in "semantically mediated" phonological priming. Memory & Cognition, 29, 530-539.
12. FORSTER, K. I. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. In R. J. Wales & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms (pp. 257-287). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
13. FORSTER, K. I. (1998). The pros and cons of masked priming. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 203-233.
14. FORSTER, K. I., & CHAMBERS, S. M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 12, 627-635.
15. FORSTER, K. I., & DAVIS, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 10, 680-698.
16. FORSTER, K. I., DAVIS, C., SCHOKNECHT, C., & CARTER, R. (1987). Masked priming with graphemically related forms: Repetition or partial activation? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39A, 211-251.
17. FORSTER, K. I., & VERES, C. (1998). The prime lexicality effect: Form-priming as a function of prime awareness, lexical status, and discrimination difficulty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 498-514.
18. FROST, R. (1995). Phonological computation and missing vowels: Mapping lexical involvement in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 398-408.
19. FROST, R. (1998). Toward a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: True issues and false trails. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 71-99.
20. FROST, R., AHISSAR, M., GOTESMAN, R., & TAYEB, S. (2003). Are phonological effects fragile? The effect of luminance and exposure duration on form priming and phonological priming. Journal of Memory & Language, 48, 346-378.
21. 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.
22. GRAINGER, J., MUNEAUX, M., FARIOLI, F., & ZIEGLER, J. C. (2005). Effects of phonological and orthographic neighbourhood density interact in visual word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 981-998.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. HINO, Y., LUPKER, S. J., SEARS, C. R., & OGAWA, T. (1998). The effects of polysemy for Japanese katakana words. Reading & Writing, 10, 395-424.
26. HUMPHREYS, G. W., EVETT, L. J., & TAYLOR, D. E. (1982). Automatic phonological priming in visual word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 10, 576-590.
27. JARED, D., LEVY, B. A., & RAYNER, K. (1999). The role of phonology in the activation of word meanings during reading: Evidence from proofreading and eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 219-264.
28. KEEFE, D. E., & NEELY, J. H. (1990). Semantic priming in the pronunciation task: The role of prospective prime-generated expectancies. Memory & Cognition, 18, 289-298.
29. KUČERA, H., & FRANCIS, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
30. LESCH, M. F., & POLLATSEK, A. (1993). Automatic access of semantic information by phonological codes in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 285-294.
31. LUKATELA, G., FROST, S. J., & TURVEY, M. T. (1998). Phonological priming by masked nonword primes in the lexical decision task. Journal of Memory & Language, 39, 666-683.
32. LUKATELA, G., & TURVEY, M. T. (1994a). Visual lexical access is initially phonological: 1. Evidence from associative priming by words, homophones, and pseudohomophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 107-128.
33. LUKATELA, G., & TURVEY, M. T. (1994b). Visual lexical access is initially phonological: 2. Evidence from phonological priming by homophones and pseudohomophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 331-353.
34. MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1979). On the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systems of processes in cascade. Psychological Review, 86, 287-330.
35. MCCLELLAND, J. L., & RUMELHART, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375-407.
36. MERIKLE, P. M., JOORDENS, S., & STOLZ, J. A. (1995). Measuring the relative magnitude of unconscious influences. Consciousness & Cognition, 4, 422-439.
37. NEELY, J. H. (1976). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Evidence for facilitatory and inhibitory processes. Memory & Cognition, 4, 648-654.
38. NEELY, J. H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Role of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 226-254.
39. 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 processing in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264-336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. NEELY, J. H., & KEEFE, D. E. (1989). Semantic context effects on visual word processing: A hybrid prospective/retrospective processing theory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 24, pp. 207-248). New York: Academic Press.
41. NELSON, D. L., MCEVOY, C. L., & SCHREIBER, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Available at w3.usf.edu/ FreeAssociation/.
42. NUSBAUM, H. C., PISONI, D. B., & DAVIS, C. K. (1984). Sizing up the Hoosier Mental Lexicon: Measuring the familiarity of 20,000 words. In Research on speech perception (Progress Rep. No. 10, pp. 357-376). Bloomington: Indiana University, Speech Research Laboratory.
43. O'SEAGHDHA, P. G., & MARIN, J. W. (1997). Mediated semantic-phonological priming: Calling distant relatives. Journal of Memory & Language, 36, 226-252.
44. PECHER, D. (2001). Perception is a two-way junction: Feedback semantics in word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 545-551.
45. 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.
46. PEXMAN, P. M., LUPKER, S. J., & HINO, Y. (2002). The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: Number-of-feafures effects in lexical decision and naming tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 542-549.
47. PEXMAN, P. M., LUPKER, S. J., & JARED, D. (2001). Homophone effects in lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 139-156.
48. PEXMAN, P. M., LUPKER, S. J., & REGGIN, L. (2002). Phonological effects in visual word recognition: Investigating the impact of feedback activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 572-584.
49. PLAUT, D. C., & BOOTH, J. R. (2000). Individual and developmental differences in semantic priming: Empirical and computational support for a single-mechanism account of lexical processing. Psychological Review, 107, 786-823.
50. PLAUT, D. C., MCCLELLAND, J. L., SEIDENBERG, M. S., & PATTERSON, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56-115.
51. POSNER, M. I., & SNYDER, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium (pp. 55-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
52. RASTLE, K., & COLTHEART, M. (1999). Lexical and nonlexical phonological priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 461-481.
53. REIMER, J. F. (2006). Developmental changes in the allocation of semantic feedback during visual word recognition. Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 194-212.
54. REIMER, J. F., BROWN, J. S., & LORSBACH, T. C. (2001). Orthographically mediated inhibition effects: Evidence of activational feedback during visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 102-110.
55. RUBENSTEIN, H., GARFIELD, L., & MILLIKAN, J. A. (1970). Homographic entries in the internal lexicon. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 9, 487-494.
56. RUMELHART, D. E., & MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: II. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychological Review, 89, 60-94.
57. SCARBOROUGH, D. L., CORTESE, C., & SCARBOROUGH, H. S. (1977). Frequency and repetition effects in lexical memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 3, 1-17.
58. SCHNEIDER, W., ESCHMAN, A., & ZUCCOLOTTO, A. (2002). E-Prime user's guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.
59. SEIDENBERG, M. S., & MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523-568.
60. SMITH, M. C., & BESNER, D. (2001). Modulating semantic feedback in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 111-117.
61. STOLZ, J. A., & NEELY, J. H. (1995). When target degradation does and does not enhance semantic context effects in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, & Cognition, 21, 596-611.
62. 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.
63. VAN ORDEN, G. C., & GOLDINGER, S. D. (1994). The interdependence of form and function in cognitive systems explains perception of printed words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 1269-1291.
64. VAN ORDEN, G. C., PENNINGTON, B. F., & STONE, G. O. (1990). Word identification in reading and the promise of subsymbolic psycholinguistics. Psychological Review, 97, 488-522.
65. WIKE, E. L., & CHURCH, J. D. (1976). Comments on Clark's "The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy." Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 15, 249-255.
66. YATES, M. (2005). Phonological neighbors speed visual word processing: Evidence from multiple tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 1385-1397.
67. ZORZI, M., HOUGHTON, G., & BUTTERWORTH, B. (1998). Two routes or one in reading aloud? A connectionist dual-process model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1131-1161.