Contrasting graded effects of semantic similarity and association across the concreteness spectrum

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 64, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 1388-1408

  Crutch, Sebastian J ^a   Jackson, Ella C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Abstract; Association; Conceptual knowledge; Concrete; Semantics; Similarity

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; CEREBRAL ARTERY DISEASE; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION; SEMANTICS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFARCTION, MIDDLE CEREBRAL ARTERY; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SEMANTICS; VOCABULARY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 80051738015     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2010.543285     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Anderson, J. R. (1991). The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological Review, 98, 409-429.
2. Andrews, M., Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D. (2009). Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review, 116, 463-498.
3. Avilés, A., Duñabeitia, J. A., & Carreiras, M. (2009). The representation of abstract and concrete words: Evidence from priming. Manuscript submitted for publication.
4. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX Lexical Database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
5. Barry, C., & Gerhand, S. (2003). Both concreteness and age-of-acquisition affect reading accuracy but only concreteness affects comprehension in a deep dyslexic patient. Brain and Language, 74, 26-47.
6. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.
7. Bird, H., Howard, D., & Franklin, S. (2003). Verbs and nouns: The importance of being imageable. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 16, 113-149.
8. Breedin, S. D., Saffran, E. M., & Coslett, H. B. (1994). Reversal of the concreteness effect in a patient with semantic dementia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11, 617-660.
9. Brown, R. W. (1957). Linguistic determinism and the part of speech. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 55, 1-5.
10. Brown, W. P., & Ure, D. M. J. (1969). Five rated characteristics of 650 word association stimuli. British Journal of Psychology, 60, 233-249.
11. Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC Psycholinguistic Database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 497-505.
12. Crutch, S. J. (2006). Qualitatively different semantic representations for abstract and concrete words: Further evidence from the semantic reading errors of deep dyslexic patients. Neurocase, 12, 91-97.
13. Crutch, S. J., Connell, S., & Warrington, E. K. (2009). The different representational frameworks underpinning abstract and concrete knowledge: Evidence from odd-one-out judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1377-1390.
14. Crutch, S. J., Ridha, B. H., & Warrington, E. K. (2006). The different principles of organisation underlying abstract and concrete knowledge: Evidence from a bilingual patient with a semantic refractory access dysphasia. Neurocase, 12, 151-163.
15. Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2005). Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational frameworks. Brain, 128, 615-627.
16. Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2007). Semantic priming in deep-phonological dyslexia: Contrasting effects of association and similarity upon abstract and concrete word reading. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24, 1-20.
17. Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2008). Contrasting patterns of comprehension for general and specific semantic information in semantic dementia andstroke. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25, 582-600.
18. Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2010a). The differential dependence of abstract and concrete words upon associative and similarity-based information: Complementary semantic interference and facilitation effects. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 27, 46-71.
19. Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2010b). Spatiallycoded semantic information about geographical terms, Neuropsychologia, 48, 2120-2129.
20. Duñ abeitia, J. A., Avilés, A., Alfonso, O., Scheepers, C., & Carreiras, M. (2009). Qualitative differences in the representation of abstract versus concrete words: Evidence from the visual-world paradigm. Cognition, 110, 284-292.
21. Dunn, L. M., Dunn, L. M., Whetton, C., & Pintilie, D. (1982). The British Picture Vocabulary Scale. Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson.
22. Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning (Tech. Rep. No. 257). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Center for the Study of Reading.
23. Gilhooly, K. J., & Logie, R. H. (1980). Age of acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity and ambiguity measures for 1944 words. Behaviour Research Methods & Instrumentation, 12, 395-427.
24. Hamilton, A. C., & Coslett, H. B. (2008). Refractory access disorders and the organization of concrete and abstract semantics: Do they differ? Neurocase, 14, 131-140.
25. Hamilton, A. C., Schnur, T. T., & Martin, R. (2009, October). Do abstract and concrete concepts have different representational frameworks? Further evidence from another case of refractory semantic access disorder. Paper presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Aphasia, Boston, MA.
26. James, C. T. (1975). The role of semantic information in lexical decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 104, 130-136.
27. Jarmasz, M., & Szpakowicz, S. (2003). Roget's thesaurus and semantic similarity. In G. Angelova, K. Bontcheva, R. Mitkov, N. Nicolov, & N. Nikolov (Eds.), Proceedings of Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP 2003), Borovets, Bulgaria, September, 212-219.
28. Johnston, R. A., & Barry, C. (2006). Age of acquisition and lexical processing. Visual Cognition, 13, 789-845.
29. Jones, G. V. (1985). Deep dyslexia, imageability and ease of predication. Brain and Language, 24, 1-19.
30. Kiss, G. R., Armstrong, C., Milroy, R., & Piper, J. (1973). An associative thesaurus of English and its computer analysis. In A. J. Aitken, R. W. Bailey, & N. Hamilton-Smith (Eds.), The computer and literary studies. Edinburgh, UK: University Press.
31. Landau, B., Jones, S., & Smith, L. (1992). Perception, ontology and naming in young children. Commentary on Soja, Carey and Spelte. Cognition, 43, 85-91.
32. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
33. Lucas, M. (2000). Semantic priming without association: A meta-analytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 618-630.
34. Marques, J. F. (2007). The general/specific breakdown of semantic memory and the nature of superordinate knowledge: Insights from superordinate and basiclevel feature norms. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24, 879-903.
35. Marshall, J. C., & Newcombe, F. (1973). Patterns of paralexia: A psycholinguistic approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2, 175-199.
36. McKenna, P., & Warrington, E. K. (1978). Categoryspecific naming preservation: A single case study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 41, 571-574.
37. McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 547-559.
38. Mirman, D., & Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Attractor dynamics and semantic neighborhood density: Processing is slowed by near neighbors and speeded by distant neighbours. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 34, 65-79.
39. Monaghan, J., & Ellis, A. W. (2002). What, exactly, interacts with spelling-sound consistency in word naming? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 28, 183-206.
40. Moss, H. E., Hare, M. L., Day, P., & Tyler, L. K. (1994). A distributed memory model of the associative boost. Connection Science, 6, 413-427.
41. Moss, H. E., Ostrin, R. K., Tyler, L. K., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1995). Accessing different types of lexical semantic information: Evidence from priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 863-883.
42. 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 (pp. 264-336). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
43. Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Available from http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/
44. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
45. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
46. Paivio, A., Yuille, C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement, 76, 1-25.
47. th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 37-42). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
48. Plaut, D. C., & Shallice, T. (1993). Deep dyslexia: A case study of connectionist neuropsychology. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 10, 377-500.
49. Rodd, J. M., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 245-266.
50. Rodd, J. M., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2004). Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition. Cognitive Science, 28, 89-104.
51. Rogers, T. T., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
52. Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Shoben, E. J. (1983). Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 9, 82-102.
53. Sirigu, A., Duhamel, J. R., & Poncet, M. (1991). The role of sensorimotor experience in object recognition: A case of multimodal agnosia. Brain, 114, 2555-2573.
54. Snowling, M., Stothard, S., & McLean, J. (1996). Graded Nonword Reading Test. Bury St Edmonds, UK: Thames Valley Test Company.
55. Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Lewis, W., & Garrett, M. (2004). Representing the meanings of objects and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 422-488.
56. Warrington, E. K. (1996). The Camden Memory Test manual. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
57. Warrington, E. K., & Crutch, S. J. (2005). Jargon dyslexia in an individual with semantic dementia: Further evidence for task-specificity in phonological output. Neurocase, 11, 351-362.
58. Warrington, E. K., & Shallice, T. (1984). Category specific semantic impairments. Brain, 107, 829-854.
59. Wechsler, D. (1999). The Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. St Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
60. Wiemer-Hastings, K., Krug, J., & Xu, X. (2001). Imagery, context availability, contextual constraint and abstractness, In J. D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1134-1139). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.