Miscomprehension, meaning, and phonology: The unknown and phonological Armstrong illusions

European Journal of Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 529-568

  Shafto, Meredith A ^a   MacKay, Donald G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Comprehension; Moses illusion; Phonological processing; Semantic processing; Sentence processing

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; ERROR; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; ILLUSION; LANGUAGE; MISCOMPREHENSION; PHONETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMANTICS; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 77952918642     PISSN: 09541446     EISSN: 14640635     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09541440902941967     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2. Barton, S. B., & Sanford, A. J. (1993). A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory and Cognition, 21, 477-487.
3. Bridgeman, B. (2003). Why every perceptual psychologist should know about eye movements. American Journal of Psychology, 116, 315-318.
4. Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In J. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 11-54). New York: Wiley.
5. Brysbaert, M., Grondelaersb, S., & Ratinckxa, E. (2000). Sentence reading: Do we make use of orthographic cues in homophones? Acta Psychologia, 105, 31-56.
6. Carmichael, L., Hogan, H. P., & Walter, A. A. (1932). An experimental study of the effect of language on the reproduction of visually perceived form. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 73-86.
7. CMU Pronouncing Dictionary (version. 0.6) [Data file]. (1998). Carnegie Mellon University, Speech at CMU Web site. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.cs.cmu.edu/ project/speech/dict/cmudict.0.6
8. Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC Psycholinguistic Database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 497-505. Updated version retrieved from http://www.psy.uwa.edu.au/ MRCDataBase/uwa-mrc.htm
9. Cormier, S. M. (1981). A match-mismatch theory of limbic system function. Physiological Psychology, 9, 3-36.
10. Erickson, T. D., & Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 540-551.
11. Fromkin, V. A. (1973). Speech errors as linguistic evidence. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
12. Kamas, E. N., Reder, L. M., & Ayers, M. S. (1996). Partial matching in the Moses illusion: Response bias not sensitivity. Memory and Cognition, 24, 687-699.
13. Lashley, K. S. (1951). The problem of serial order in behavior. In L. A. Jeffress (Ed.), Cerebral mechanisms in behavior (pp. 112-146). New York: Wiley.
14. Levy, B. A. (1983). Proofreading familiar text: Constraints on visual processing. Memory and Cognition, 11, 1-12.
15. Loftus, E. F., Feldman, J., & Dashiell, R. (1995). The reality of illusory memories. In D. L. Schacter, J. T. Coyle, G. D. Fishbach, M. M. Mesulam, & L. E. Sullivan (Eds.), Memory distortion: How minds, brains and societies reconstruct the past (pp. 47-68). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16. MacKay, D. G. (1972). Input testing in the detection of misspellings. American Journal of Psychology, 85, 121-127.
17. MacKay, D. G. (1973). Aspects of the theory of comprehension, memory, and attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 22-40.
18. MacKay, D. G. (1987). The organization of perception and action: A theory for language and other cognitive skills. New York: Springer-Verlag.
19. MacKay, D. G., & James, L. E. (2002). Aging, retrograde amnesia, and the binding problem for phonology and orthography: A longitudinal study of ''hippocampal amnesic'' HM. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 9, 298-333.
20. MacKay, D. G., Miller, M. D., & Schuster, S. P. (1994). Repetition blindness and aging: Evidence for a binding deficit involving a single theoretically-specified connection. Psychology and Aging, 9, 251-258.
21. Park, H., & Reder, L. M. (2004). Moses illusion: Implication for human cognition. In R. F. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions (pp. 275-291). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
22. Pastore, R. E., Crawley, E. J., Berens,M. S., & Skelly, M. A. (2003). ''Nonparametric'' A' and other modern misconceptions about signal detection theory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 556-569.
23. Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books.
24. Reder, L. M., & Cleeremans, A. (1990). The role of partial matches in comprehension: The Moses illusion revisited. In A. Graesser & G. Bower (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 25, pp. 233-258). New York: Academic Press.
25. Reder, L.M., & Kusbit, G.W. (1991). Locus of the Moses illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match? Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 385-406.
26. Schacter, D. L., Coyle, J. T., Fishbach, G. D., Mesulam, M. M., & Sullivan, L. E. (Eds.). (1995). Memory distortion: How minds, brains and societies reconstruct the past. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27. Shafto, M. A., & MacKay, D. G. (2000). The Moses, Mega-Moses, and Armstrong illusions: Integrating language comprehension and semantic memory. Psychological Science, 11, 372-378.
28. Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 31, 137-149.
29. Stark, L., & Bridgeman, B. (1983). Role of corollary discharge in space constancy. Perception and Psychophysics, 34, 371-380.
30. Teuber, H.-L. (1960). Perception. In J. Field, H. W. Magain, & V. E. Hall (Eds.), Handbook of physiology (Vol. 3, pp. 1595-1688). Washington, DC: American Physiological Society.
31. van Oostendorp, H., & Kok, I. (1990). Failing to notice errors in sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, 105-113.
32. Van Orden, G. C. (1987). A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling, sound and reading. Memory and Cognition, 15, 181-198.
33. Waters, G. S., Caplan, D., & Leonard, C. (1992). The role of phonology in reading comprehension: Implications of the effects of homophones on processing sentences with referentially dependent categories. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A, 343-372.
34. Ziegler, J. C., van Orden, G. C., & Jacobs, A. M. (1997). Phonology can help or hurt the perception of print. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 845-860.