Get rich quick: The signal to respond procedure reveals the time course of semantic richness effects during visual word recognition

Cognition

Volumn 131, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 216-242

  Hargreaves, Ian S ^a   Pexman, Penny M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Lexical semantics; Semantic richness; Signal to respond procedure; Situated cognition; Time course; Visual word recognition

Indexed keywords

FEMALE; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; READING; RECOGNITION; SEMANTICS; YOUNG ADULT;

FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; READING; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SEMANTICS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84894139445     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: 18737838     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.01.001     Document Type: Article

References (103)

1. Amsel B. Tracking real-time neural activation of conceptual knowledge using single-trial event-related potentials. Neuropsychologia 2011, 49:970-983.
2. Anderson J.R. Arguments concerning representations for mental imagery. Psychological Review 1978, 85:249-277.
3. Andrews M., Vigliocco G., Vinson D. Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review 2009, 116:463-498.
4. Antos S.J. Processing facilitation in a lexical decision task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1979, 5:527-545.
5. Audet C., Burgess C. Using a high-dimensional memory model to evaluate the properties of abstract and concrete words. Cognitive Science Proceedings, LEA 1999, 37-42.
6. Baayen R.H. Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R 2008, Cambridge University Press.
7. Baayen R.H., Davidson D.J., Bates D.M. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 59:390-412.
8. Balota D., Chumbley J. Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1984, 10:340-357.
9. Balota D.A., Cortese M.J., Sergent-Marshall S.D., Spieler D.H., Yap M.J. Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2004, 133:283-316.
10. Balota D., Paul P., Spieler D. Attentional control of lexical processing pathways during word recognition. Language processing 1999, 15-57. Psychology Press Ltd., East Sussex, UK. S. Garrod, M. Pickering (Eds.).
11. Balota D.A., Yap M.J., Cortese M.J., Hutchison K.A., Kessler B., Loftis B., et al. The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods 2007, 39:445-459.
12. Barr D. Random effects structure for testing interactions in linear mixed-effects models. Frontiers in Psychology 2013, 4:1-2. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00328.
13. Barsalou L.W., Santos A., Simmons W.K., Wilson C.D. Language and simulation in conceptual processing. Symbols, embodiment, and meaning 2008, 245-283. Oxford University Press, Oxford. M. De Vega, A.M. Glenberg, A.C. Graesser (Eds.).
14. Bates, D. M. (2007). Linear mixed model implementation in lme4. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Statistics, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
15. Bedny M., Caramazza A. Perception, action, and word meanings in the human brain: The case from action verbs. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2011, 1224:81-95.
16. Bennett S.D., Burnett A.N., Siakaluk P.D., Pexman P.M. Imageability and body-object interaction ratings for 599 multisyllabic nouns. Behavior Research Methods 2011, 43:1100-1109.
17. Binder J., Desai R. The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2011, 15(11):527-536.
18. Borghi A., Cimatti F. Embodied cognition and beyond: Acting and sensing the body. Neuropsychology 2010, 48:763-773.
19. Brants T., Franz A. Web 1T 5-gram Version 1 2006, Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia.
20. Brysbaert M., New B. Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods 2009, 41(4):977-990.
21. Brysbaert M., New B. Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods 2010, 41:977-990.
22. Buchanan L., Westbury C., Burgess C. Characterizing semantic space: Neighborhood effects in word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2001, 8:531-544.
23. Burgess C., Conley P. Representing proper names and objects in a common semantic space: A computational model. Brain and Cognition 1999, 40:67-70.
24. Burgess C., Lund K. Modeling parsing constraints with high-dimensional context space. Language and Cognitive Processes 1997, 12:177-210.
25. Chen Q., Mirman D. Competition and cooperation among similar representations: Toward a unified account of facilitative and inhibitory effects of lexical neighbors. Psychological Review 2012, 119:417-430.
26. Coltheart M., Davelaar E., Jonasson J.T., Besner D. Access to the internal lexicon. Attention and performance VI 1977, Earlbaum, New Jersey. S. Dornic (Ed.).
27. Coltheart M., Rastle K., Perry C., Langdon R., Ziegler J. DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review 2001, 108:204-256.
28. Cortese M.J., Fugett A. Imageability ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods 2004, 36:384-387.
29. Cree G.S., McNorgan C., McRae K. Distinctive features hold a privileged status in the computation of word meaning: Implications for theories of semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2006, 32:643-658.
30. Cree G., McRae K. Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2003, 132:163-201.
31. Dove G. Beyond perceptual symbols: A call for representational pluralism. Cognition 2009, 110:412-431.
32. Dove G. On the need for embodied and dis-embodied cognition. Frontiers in Psychology 2011, 1:1-13. 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00242.
33. Grainger J., Jacobs A.M. Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review 1996, 103:518-565.
34. Gronlund S.D., Ratcliff R. Time course of item and associative information: Implications for global memory models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1989, 15:846-858.
35. Hauk O., Davis M., Ford M., Pulvermüller F., Marslen-Wilson W. The time course of visual word recognition as revealed by linear regression analysis of ERP data. NeuroImage 2006, 30:1383-1400.
36. Hauk O., Pulvermüller F. Neurophysiological distinction of action words in the fronto-central cortex. Human Brain Mapping 2004, 21:191-201.
37. Hauk O., Pulvermüller F., Ford M., Marslen-Wilson W., Davis M.H. Can I have a quick word? Early electrophysiological manifestations of psycholinguistic processes revealed by event-related regression analysis of the EEG. Biological Psychology 2009, 80:64-74.
38. Hauk O., Shtyrov Y., Pulvermüller F. The sound of actions as reflected by mismatch negativity: Rapid activation of cortical sensory-motor networks by sounds associated with finger and tongue movements. European Journal of Neuroscience 2006, 23:811-821.
39. Hintzman D.L., Curran T. Comparing retrieval dynamics in recognition memory and lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1997, 126:228-247.
40. Jaeger, T. F. (2011). Post to HLP/Jaeger lab blog, 25 June 2011. <. http://www.hlplab.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/more-on-random-slopes.
41. Jaśkowski P., Van der Lubbe R.H.J., Wauschkuhn B., Wascher E., Verleger R. The influence of time pressure and expectancy on response force in an S1-S2 paradigm. Acta Psychologia 2000, 105:89-105.
42. Jefferies E., Lambon Ralph M. Semantic impairment in stroke aphasia versus semantic dementia: A case-series comparison. Brain 2006, 129:2132-2147.
43. Kello C.T., Plaut D.C., MacWhinney B. The task dependence of staged versus cascaded processing: An empirical and computational study of Stroop interference on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2000, 129:340-360.
44. Kiefer K., Martens U. Attentional sensitization of unconscious cognition: Task sets modulate subsequent masked semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2010, 139:464-489.
45. Kiefer M., Pulvermüller F. Conceptual representations in mind and brain: Theoretical developments, current evidence and future directions. Cortex 2012, 48:805-825.
46. Kounios J. On the continuity of thought and the representation of knowledge: Electrophysiological and behavioral time-course measures reveal levels of structure in semantic memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1996, 3(3):265-286.
47. Kounios J., Green D.L., Payne L., Fleck J.I., Grondin R., McRae K. Semantic richness and the activation of concepts in semantic memory: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain Research 2009, 1282:95-102.
48. Lambon Ralph M. Neurocognitive insights on conceptual knowledge and its breakdown. Philosophical Transactions Royal Society B 2013, eScholarID: 206214.
49. Landauer T.K., Dumais S.T. A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review 1997, 104:211-240.
50. Louwerse M. Symbol interdependency in symbolic and embodied cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science 2010, 3:1-30.
51. Louwerse M., Connell L. A taste of words: Linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. Cognitive Science 2011, 35:381-398.
52. Lund K., Burgess C. Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 1996, 28:203-208.
53. Mahon B.Z., Caramazza A. A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology - Paris 2008, 102:59-70.
54. Masson M.E.J. A distributed memory model of semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1995, 21:3-23.
55. McRae K., Cree G., Seidenberg M.S., McNorgan C. Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers 2005, 28:547-559.
56. McRae K., de Sa V.R., Seidenberg M.S. On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1997, 126:99-130.
57. Miller G. WordNet: An online lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography 1990, 3:235-312.
58. Mirman D., Magnusson J.S. Attractor dynamics and semantic neighborhood density: Processing is slowed by near neighbors and speeded by distant neighbors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2008, 34:65-79.
59. Monsell S. Frequency effects in lexical tasks: Reply to Balota and Chumbley. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1990, 119:335-339.
60. Morton J. Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review 1969, 76:165-178.
61. Neely J.H. Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. Basic processes in reading 1991, 264-336. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. D. Besner, G.W. Humphreys (Eds.).
62. Norris D. The Bayesian reader: Explaining word recognition as an optimal Bayesian decision process. Psychological Review 2006, 113(2):327-357.
63. Paivio A. Imagery and verbal processes 1971, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.
64. Paivio A. Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology 1991, 45:255-287.
65. Pecher D., Zeelenberg R., Barsalou L. Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science 2003, 14:119-124.
66. Pexman P. Meaning-based influences on visual word recognition. Visual word recognition: Meaning and context, individuals and development 2012, 24-43. Psychology Press, Hove, UK. J.S. Adelman (Ed.).
67. Pexman P.M., Hargreaves I.S., Siakaluk P.D., Bodner G.E., Pope J. There are many ways to be rich: Effects of three measures of semantic richness on visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2008, 15:161-167.
68. Pexman P.M., Lupker S.J., Hino Y. The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: Number of features effects in lexical decision and naming tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2002, 9:542-549.
69. Plaut D.C., Shallice T. Deep dyslexia: A case study of connectionist neuropsychology. Cognitive Neuropsychology 1993, 10:377-500.
70. Pylyshyn Z. Mental Imagery: In search of a theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2002, 25:157-182.
71. Rabovsky M., Sommer W., Abdel Rahman R. The time course of semantic richness effects in visual word recognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2012, 6:1-9. 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00011.
72. Ratcliff R. Modeling response and signal time data. Cognitive Psychology 2006, 53:195-237.
73. Recchia G., Jones M.N. The semantic richness of abstract concepts. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2012, 6:1-16. 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00315.
74. Rinkenauer G., Osman A., Ulrich R., Müller-Gethmann H., Mattes S. On the locus of speed-accuracy trade-off in reaction time: Inferences from the lateralized readiness potential. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2004, 133:261-282.
75. R Core Team (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.
76. Rogers T., McClelland J. Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach 2004, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
77. Rosch E. Principles of categorization. Cognition and categorization 1978, 27-48. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. E. Rosch, B.B. Lloyd (Eds.).
78. Santos A., Chaigneau S.E., Simmons W.K., Barsalou L.W. Property generation reflects word association and situated simulation. Language and Cognition 2011, 3:83-119.
79. Schielzeth H., Forstmeier W. Conclusions beyond support: Overconfident estimates in mixed models. Behavioral Ecology 2009, 20:416-420.
80. Schwanenflugel P., Harnishfeger K., Stowe R. Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words. Journal of Memory and Language 1988, 27:499-520.
81. Shaoul C., Westbury C. Exploring lexical co-occurrence space using HiDEx. Behavior Research Methods 2010, 42:393-413.
82. Shaoul C., Westbury C. Neighbourhood density measures for 57,153 English words 2010, University of Alberta, Edmonton. AB, .
83. Siakaluk P.D., Buchanan L., Westbury C. The effect of semantic distance in go/no-go semantic categorization tasks. Memory and Cognition 2003, 31:100-113.
84. Siakaluk P.D., Pexman P.M., Sears C.R., Wilson K., Locheed K., Owen W.J. The benefits of sensorimotor knowledge: Body-object interaction facilitates semantic processing. Cognitive Science 2008, 32:591-605.
85. Simmons W.K., Hamann S.B., Harenski C.N., Hu X.P., Barsalou L.W. fMRI evidence for word association and situated simulation in conceptual processing. Journal of Physiology - Paris 2008, 102:106-119.
86. Smith E., Shoben E., Rips L. Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review 1974, 81:214-241.
87. Solomon K.O., Barsalou L.W. Perceptual simulation in property verification. Memory and Cognition 2004, 32:244-259.
88. Tillotson S.M., Siakaluk P.D., Pexman P.M. Body-object interaction ratings for 1,618 monosyllabic nouns. Behavior Research Methods 2008, 40:1075-1078.
89. Tousignant C., Pexman P.M. Flexible recruitment of semantic richness: Context modulates body-object interaction effects in lexical-semantic processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2012, 6. 10.3389/fnhum.2012.0053.
90. Tremblay, A. (2011). LMERConvenienceFunctions: A suite of functions to back-fit fixed effects and forward-fit random effects. [Computer software manual]. (R package version 2.15). http://www.CRAN.Rproject.org/package=LMERConvenienceFunctions.
91. Tversky A. Features of similarity. Psychological Review 1977, 84:327-352.
92. Vigliocco G., Vinson D., Lewis W., Garrett M. Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology 2004, 48:422-488.
93. Wagenmakers E.J., Steyvers M., Raaijmakers J.G.W., Shiffrin R.M., van Rijn H., Zeelenberg R. A model for evidence accumulation in the lexical decision task. Cognitive Psychology 2004, 48:332-367.
94. Whitney C., Kirk M., O'Sullivan J., Lambon Ralph M., Jefferies E. The neural organization of semantic control: TMS evidence for a distributed network in left inferior frontal and posterior middle temporal gyrus. Cerebral Cortex 2011, 21:1066-1075.
95. Wickelgren W.A. Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics. Acta Psychologica 1977, 41:67-85.
96. Wilson M. Six views on embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2002, 9:625-636.
97. Yap M., Tan S., Pexman P., Hargreaves I. Is more always better? Effects of semantic richness on lexical decision, speeded pronunciation, and semantic classification. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2011, 18:742-750.
98. Yap M., Seow C.S. The influence of emotion on lexical processing: Insights from the RT distributional analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2013, Advanced online publication. 10.3758/s13423-013-0525-x.
99. Yap M.J., Balota D.A., Tan S.E. Additive and interactive effects in semantic priming: Isolating lexical and decision processes in the Lexical Decision Task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2013, 39:140-158.
100. Yap M., Balota D., Tse C., Besner D. On the additive effects of stimulus quality and word frequency in lexical decision: Evidence for opposing interactive influences revealed by RT distributional analyses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2008, 34:495-513.
101. Yap M.J., Pexman P.M., Wellsby M., Hargreaves I.S., Huff M. An abundance of riches: Cross-task comparisons of semantic richness effects in visual word recognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2012, 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00053.
102. Yarkoni T., Balota D.A., Yap M.J. Moving beyond Coltheart's N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2008, 15:971-979.
103. Zdrazilova L., Pexman P.M. Grasping the invisible: Semantic processing of abstract words. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2013, in press.