Inducing homonymy effects via stimulus quality and (not) nonword difficulty: Implications for models of semantic ambiguity and word recognition

Expanding the Space of Cognitive Science - Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2011

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 2223-2228

  Armstrong, Blair C ^a   Plaut, David C ^a  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

decision making; lexical decision; models of word recognition; nonword difficulty; semantic ambiguity; settling dynamics; stimulus degradation

Indexed keywords

DYNAMICS; SEMANTICS; VOCABULARY CONTROL;

DECISIONS MAKINGS; LEXICAL DECISION; MODEL OF WORD RECOGNITION; NONWORD DIFFICULTY; SEMANTIC AMBIGUITIES; SEMANTIC CATEGORIZATION; SETTLING DYNAMIC; STIMULI QUALITY; STIMULUS DEGRADATION; WORD RECOGNITION;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 84978626282     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Armstrong, B. C., Joordens, S., & Plaut, D. C. (2009). Yoked Criteria Shifts in Decision System Adaptation: Computational and Behavioral Investigations. In Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society. Hillsdale, NJ: Cognitive Science Society.
2. Armstrong, B. C., & Plaut, D. C. (2008). Settling dynamics in distributed networks explain task differences in semantic ambiguity effects: Computational and behavioral evidence. In Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the cognitive science society. Hillsdale, NJ: Cognitive Science Society.
3. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.
4. Baayen, R. H., & Milin, P. (in press). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research.
5. Beretta, A., Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: an MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(1), 57–65.
6. Borowsky, R., & Besner, D. (1993). Visual word recognition: A multistage activation model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(4), 813–840.
7. Borowsky, R., & Besner, D. (2006). Parallel Distributed Processing and Lexical-Semantic Effects in Visual Word Recognition: Are a Few Stages Necessary? Psychological Review, 113(1), 181–193.
8. Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kucera 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, 41(4), 977–990.
9. Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J., & Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. Attention and performance VI, 535–555.
10. Fellbaum, C. (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. The MIT press.
11. Hino, Y., Pexman, P., & Lupker, S. (2006). Ambiguity and relatedness effects in semantic tasks: Are they due to semantic coding? Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 247–273.
12. Klepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. R. (2007). Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(1), 1–24.
13. Mirman, D., Strauss, T., Dixon, J., & Magnuson, J. (2010). Effect of representational distance between meanings on recognition of ambiguous spoken words. Cognitive Science, 34(1), 161–173.
14. Rastle, K., Harrington, J., & Coltheart, M. (2002). 358,534 nonwords: The ARC nonword database. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 55(4), 1339–1362.
15. Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(2), 245–266.
16. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2010). E-prime, Version 2.0.8.90 [Computer Software]. Pittsburgh, PA:: Psychology Software Tools.
17. Yarkoni, T., Balota, D., & Yap, M. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(5), 971-979.