Different influences on lexical priming for integrative, thematic, and taxonomic relations

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

Volumn , Issue JUNE 2012, 2012, Pages

  Jones, Lara L ^a   Golonka, Sabrina ^b  

^a WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Integrative; Relational representation; Semantic priming; Taxonomic; Thematic

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERNET; LANGUAGE ABILITY; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MENTAL PERFORMANCE; MENTAL TASK; NEUROBIOLOGY; NEUROSCIENCE; NORMAL HUMAN; SEMANTICS; TAXONOMY; THEMATIC ANALYSIS; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 84864194633     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16625161     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00205     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Badham, S. P., Estes, Z., & Maylor, E. A. (2012). Integrative and semantic relations equally alleviate age-related associative memory deficits. Psychology and Aging, 27, 141-152.
2. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftus, B., et al. (2007). The English lexicon project: A user's guide. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445-459.
3. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., & Cortese, M. J. (in press). Megastudies: What do millions (or so) of trials tell us about lexical processing? In J. S. Adelman (Ed.) Word recognition (Vol. 2). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
4. Chiarello, C., Burgess, C., Richards, L., & Pollock, A. (1990). Semantic and associative priming in the cerebral hemispheres: Some words do, some words don't...sometimes, some places. Brain & Language, 38, 75-104.
5. Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2005). Accessing world knowledge: Evidence from N400 and reaction time priming. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 589-606.
6. De Groot, A. M. B. (1984). Primed lexical decision: Combined effects of the proportion of related prime-target pairs and the stimulus-onset asynchrony of prime and target. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 253-280.
7. De Groot, A. M. B. (1985). Word-context effects in word naming and lexical decision. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37A, 281-297.
8. De Groot, A. M. B., Thomassen, A. J. W. M., & Hudson, P. T. W. (1982). Associative facilitation of word recognition as measured from a neutral prime.
9. Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 53, 810-842.
10. Estes, Z. (2003a). A tale of two similarities: Comparison and integration in conceptual combination. Cognitive Science, 27, 911-921.
11. Estes, Z. (2003b). Attributive and relational processes in nominal combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 304-319.
12. Estes, Z., Golonka, S., & Jones, L. L. (2011). Thematic thinking: The apprehension and consequences of thematic relations (pp. 249-294). In B. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 54. Burlington: Academic Press.
13. Estes, Z., & Jones, L. L. (2006). Priming via relational similarity: A COPPER HORSE is faster when seen through a GLASS EYE. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 89-101.
14. Estes, Z., & Jones, L. L. (2009). Integrative priming occurs rapidly and uncontrollably during lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 112-130.
15. Gagné, C. L. (2002). Lexical and relational influences on processing of novel compounds. Brain and Language, 81, 723-735.
16. Gagné, C. L., & Shoben, E. J. (2002). Priming relations in ambiguous noun-noun combinations. Memory & Cognition, 30, 637-646.
17. Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2004). Effect of relation availability on the interpretation and access of familiar noun-noun compounds. Brain and Language, 90, 478-486.
18. Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2009). Constituent integration during the processing of compound words: Does it involve the use of relational structures? Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 20-35.
19. Golonka, S., & Estes, Z. (2009). Thematic relations affect similarity via commonalities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1454-1464.
20. Hare, M., Jones, M., Thomson, C., Kelly, S., & McRae, K. (2009). Activating event knowledge. Cognition, 111, 151-167.
21. Howard, M.W. & Kahana, M. J. (2002). When does semantic similarity help episodic retrieval? Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 85-98.
22. Hutchison, K. A. (2003). Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 785-813.
23. Hutchison, K.A., Balota, D.A., Cortese, M.J., Neely, J.H., Niemeyer, D.P., & Bengson, J.J. (2012). The Semantic Priming Project: A web database of descriptive and behavioral measures for 1,661 nonwords and 1,661 English words presented in related and unrelated contexts. http://spp.montana.edu, Montana State University.
24. Hutchison, K. A., Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., & Watson, J. M. (2008). Predicting semantic priming at the item level. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1036-1066.
25. Jones, L. L. (2010). Pure mediated priming: A retrospective semantic matching model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 135-146.
26. Jones, L. L. (2011). Association strength and co-occurrence boost integrative priming. Manuscript under revision.
27. Jones, L. L. (2012). Prospective and retrospective processing in associative mediated priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 52-67.
28. Jones, L. L., & Estes, Z. (2012). Lexical priming: Associative, semantic, and thematic influences on word recognition. In J. S. Adelman (Ed.) Word recognition (Vol. 2). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
29. Jones, L. L., Estes, Z., & Golonka, S. (July, 2011). Dissociation of thematic, taxonomic, and integrative relations. Poster presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Boston, MA.
30. Jones, L. L., Estes, Z., Marsh, R. L. (2008). An asymmetric effect of relational integration on recognition memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1169-1176.
31. Jones, M. N., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2007). Representing word meaning and order information in a composite holographic lexicon. Psychological Review, 114, 1-37.
32. Jonides, J., & Mack, R. (1984). On the cost and benefit of cost and benefit. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 29-44.
33. Khalkhali, S., Wammes, J., & McRae, K. (in press). Integrating words that refer to typical sequences of events. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology.
34. Kwantes, P. J. (2005). Using context to build semantics. Psychological Bulletin and Review, 12, 703-710.
35. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1994). Latent semantic analysis and the measurement of knowledge. In R. M. Kaplan & J. C. Burstein (Eds.), Educational testing service conference on natural language processing techniques and technology in assessment and education. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
36. Landauer, T. K. & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of the acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
37. Levi, J. N. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominal. New York: Academic Press.
38. Lin, E. L. & Murphy, G. L. (2001). Thematic relations in adults' concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 3-28.
39. Lucas, M. (2000). Semantic priming without association: A meta-analytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 618-630.
40. Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2010). Embodied conceptual combination. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 1-14.
41. Maki, W. S., & Buchanan, E. (2008). Latent structure in measures of associative, semantic, and thematic knowledge. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 598-603.
42. McKoon, G. & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Spreading activation versus compound cue accounts of priming: Mediated priming revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1155-1172.
43. McRae, K. & Boisvert, S. (1998). Automatic semantic similarity priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 558-572.
44. McRae, K., & Matsuki, K. (2009). People use their knowledge of common events to understand language, and do so quickly. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 1417-1429.
45. McRae, K., Khalkhali, S., & Hare, M. (2012). Semantic and associative relations in adolescents and young adults: Examining a tenuous dichotomy. In V. F. Reyna, S. Chapman, M. Dougherty, & J. Confrey (Eds.), The adolescent brain: Learning, reasoning, and decision making. (pp. 39-66). Washington, DC: APA.
46. Metusalem, R, Kutas, M., Urbach, T. P., Hare, M., McRae, K., & Elman, J. L. (in press). Generalized event knowledge activation during online sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language.
47. Mirman, D., & Graziano, K. M. (in press). Individual differences in strength of taxonomic versus thematic relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
48. Mirman, D., Walker, G. M., & Graziano, K. M. (2011). A tale of two semantic systems: Taxonomic and thematic knowledge. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T. F. Shipley (Eds), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 2211-2216).
49. 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.
50. Murphy, G. L., & Brownell, H. H. (1985). Category differentiation in object recognition: Typicality constraints on the basic category advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 70-84.
51. Murphy, G. L., & Wisniewski, E. J. (2006). Familiarity and plausibility in conceptual combination: Reply to Gagné and Spalding (2006). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1438-1442.
52. Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1999). Developmental differences in sensitivity to semantic relations among good and poor comprehenders: Evidence from semantic priming. Cognition, 70, B1-B13.
53. Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L. & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/
54. Perraudin, S., & Mounoud, P. (2009). Contribution of the priming paradigm to the understanding of the coneptual developmental shift from 5 to 9 years of age. Developmental Science, 12, 956-977.
55. Ratcliff, R. & McKoon, G. (1988). A retrieval theory of priming. Psychological Review, 95, 385-408.
56. Rosch, E.H. (1975). Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology 104(3), 192-233.
57. Rosch, E. H., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.
58. Sachs, O., Weis, S., Zellagui, N., Zvyagintsev, M., Mathiak, K., & Kircher, T. (2008). Automatic processing of semantic relations in fMRI: Neural activation during semantic priming of taxonomic and thematic categories. Brain Research, 1218, 194-205.
59. Santos, A., Chaigneau, S. E., Simmons, W. K., & Barsalou, L. W. (2011). Property generation reflects word association and situated simulation. Language & Cognitive Processes, 3, 83-119.
60. Sass, K., Sachs, O., Krach, S., & Kircher, T. (2009). Taxonomic and thematic categories: Neural correlates of categorization in an auditory-to-visual priming task using fMRI. Brain Research, 1270, 78-87.
61. Schwartz, M. F., Kimberg, D. Y., Walker, G. M., Brecher, A., Faseyitan, O. K., Dell, G. S., Mirman, D., & Coslett, H. B. (2011). Neuroanatomical dissociation for taxonomic and thematic knowledge in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 108, 8520-8524.
62. Shelton, J. R., & Martin, R. C. (1992). How semantic is automatic semantic priming? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1191-1210.
63. Simmons Golonka, S. & Estes, Z. (2006). Using latent semantic analysis to estimate similarity. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2169-2173). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
64. Spalding, T. L., & Gagné, C. L. (2011). Relation priming in established compounds: facilitation? Memory & Cognition, 39, 1472-1486.
65. Spalding, T. L., & Ross, B. H. (2000). Concept learning and feature interpretation. Memory & Cognition, 28, 439-451.
66. Thompson-Schill, S. L., Kurtz, K. J. & Gabriele, J. D. E. (1998). Effects of semantic and associative relatedness on automatic priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 440-458.
67. Wisniewski, E. J. (1997). When concepts combine. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 167-183.
68. Wisniewski, E. J. & Bassok, M. (1999). What makes a man similar to a tie? Stimulus compatibility with comparison and integration. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 208-238.
69. Wisniewski, E. J. & Love, B. C. (1998). Relations versus properties in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 177-202.
70. Wisniewski, E. J., & Murphy, G. L. (2005). Frequency of relation type as a determinant of conceptual combination: A reanalysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 169-174.
71. Wu, L. L., & Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Perceptual simulation in conceptual combination: Evidence from property generation. Acta Psychologica, 132, 173-189.
72. Yap, M. J., Tan, S. E., Pexman, P. M., & Hargreaves, I. S. (2011). Is more always better? Effects of semantic richness on lexical decision, speeded pronunciation, and semantic classification. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 742-750.