Dominance and context effects on activation of alternative homophone meanings

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 36, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 1306-1323

  Chen, Lillian ^a   Boland, Julie E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EYE TRACKING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTUITION; LANGUAGE ABILITY; SPEECH ARTICULATION; VISUAL STIMULATION; WORD RECOGNITION;

ATTENTION; FIXATION, OCULAR; HUMANS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHONETICS; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 54949122488     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/MC.36.7.1306     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. ALLOPENNA, P. D., MAGNUSON, J. S., & TANENHAUS, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory & Language, 38, 419-439.
2. ARAI M., VAN GOMPEL, R. P. G., & SCHEEPERS, C. (2007). Priming ditransitive structures in comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 54, 218-250.
3. BINDER, K. S. (2003). Sentential and discourse topic effects on lexical ambiguity processing: An eye-movement examination. Memory & Cognition, 31, 690-702.
4. BINDER, K. S., & RAYNER, K. (1998). Contextual strength does not modulate the subordinate bias effect: Evidence from eye fixations and selfpaced reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 271-276.
5. DAHAN, D., MAGNUSON, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2001). Time course of frequency effects in spoken-word recognition: Evidence from eye movements. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 317-367.
6. DAHAN, D., & TANENHAUS, M. K. (2005). Looking at the rope when looking for the snake: Conceptually mediated eye movements during spoken-word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 453-459.
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 & 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., & RAYNER, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory & Language, 27, 429-446.
10. GOOGLE IMAGE SEARCH (2004). Retrieved January 2004, from images.google.com.
11. HUETTIG, F., & ALTMANN, G. T. M. (2007). Visual-shape competition during language-mediated attention is based on lexical input and not modulated by contextual appropriateness. Visual Cognition, 15, 985-1018.
12. HUETTIG, F., GASKELL, M. G., & QUINLAN, P. T. (2004). How speech processing affects our attention to visually similar objects: Shape competitor effects and the visual world paradigm. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regler (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 607-612). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. 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.
14. KELLAS, G., MARTIN, C., YEHLING, K., HERMAN, R., & VU, H. (1995). Contextual strength as a determinant of the subordinate bias effect. Poster presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles.
15. 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.
16. LUCAS, M. (1999). Context effects in lexical access: A meta-analysis. Memory & Cognition, 27, 385-398.
17. MARSLEN-WILSON, W. D. (1975). Sentence perception as an interactive parallel process. Science, 189, 226-228.
18. MARSLEN-WILSON, W. D., & TYLER, L. K. (1975). Processing structure of sentence perception. Nature, 257, 784-786.
19. MARTIN, C., VU., H., KELLAS, G., & METCALF, K. (1999). Strength of discourse contexts as a determinant of the subordinate bias effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 813-839.
20. ONIFER, W., & SWINNEY, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory & Cognition, 9, 225-236.
21. PACHT, J. M., & RAYNER, K. (1993). The processing of homophonic homographs during reading: Evidence from eye movement studies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 251-271.
22. 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, 52A, 841-852.
23. RAYNER, K., COOK, A. E., JUHASZ, B. J., & FRAZIER, L. (2006). Immediate disambiguation of lexically ambiguous words during reading: Evidence from eye movements. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 467-482.
24. 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 & Language, 33, 527-544.
25. REICHLE, E. D., POLLATSEK, A., & RAYNER, K. (2007). Modeling the effects of lexical ambiguity on eye movements during reading. In R. P. G. Van Gompel, M. H. Fischer, W. S. Murray, & R. L. Hill (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain (pp. 271-292). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
26. REICHLE, E. D., RAYNER, K., & POLLATSEK, A. (2003). The E-Z Reader model of eye movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 26, 445-476.
27. SEIDENBERG, M. S., TANENHAUS, M. J., LEIMAN, J. M., & BIENKOWSKI, M. (1982). Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 538-559.
28. 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.
29. SERENO, S. C., O'DONNELL, P. J., & RAYNER, K. (2006). Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: Investigating the subordinatebias effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 32, 335-350.
30. 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.
31. SIMPSON, G. B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 20, 120-136.
32. SIMPSON, G. B., & BURGESS, C. (1985). Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 11, 28-39.
33. SIMPSON, G. B., & KRUEGER, M. (1991). Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence context. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 627-643.
34. SWINNEY, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 18, 645-659.
35. TABOSSI, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal of Memory & Language, 27, 324-340.
36. TABOSSI, P. (1993). Processing ambiguous words in context. Journal of Memory & Language, 32, 359-372.
37. TABOSSI, P., COLOMBO, L., & JOB, R. (1987). Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context and dominance. Psychological Research, 49, 161-167.
38. 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 & Verbal Behavior, 18, 427-440.
39. TANENHAUS, M. K., SPIVEY-KNOWLTON, M., EBERHARD, K., & SEDIVY, J. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information during spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632-1634.
40. VU, H., & KELLAS, G. (1999). Contextual strength modulates the subordinate bias effect: Reply to Rayner, Binder, and Duffy. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 853-855.
41. VU, H., KELLAS, G., METCALF, K., & HERMAN, R. (2000). The influence of global discourse on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory & Cognition, 28, 236-252.
42. VU, H., KELLAS, G., & PAUL, S. T. (1998). Sources of sentence constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory & Cognition, 26, 979-1001.
43. 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.
44. 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.