Perception is a two-way junction: Feedback semantics in word recognition (original) (raw)
References
Andrews, S. (1982). Phonological recoding: Is the regularity effect consistent?Memory & Cognition,10, 565–575. Google Scholar
Azuma, T., &Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Why SAFE is better than FAST: The relatedness of a word’s meanings affects lexical decision times.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 484–504. Article Google Scholar
Borowsky, R., &Masson, M. E. J. (1996). Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 63–85. Article Google Scholar
Burgess, C., &Livesay, K. (1998). The effect of corpus size in predicting reaction time in a basic word recognition task: Moving on from Kučera and Francis.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,30, 272–277. Google Scholar
CELEX English database (Release E25) [On-line]. (1993). Nijmegen: Centre for Lexical Information.
Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,12, 335–359. Article Google Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B. (1989). Representational aspects of word imageability and word frequency as assessed through word association.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 824–845. Article Google Scholar
Farrar, W. T., Van Orden, G. C., & Hamouz, V. (1998)._When_sofa_primes_touch:Interdependence of spelling, phonology and meaning in “semantically-mediated” priming. Manuscript in preparation.
Glushko, R. J. (1979). The organization and activation of orthographic knowledge in reading aloud.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,5, 674–691. Article Google Scholar
Jastrzembski, J. E. (1981). Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon.Cognitive Psychology,13, 278–305. Article Google Scholar
Joordens, S., &Besner, D. (1994). When banking on meaning is not (yet) money in the bank: Explorations in connectionist modelling.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 1051–1062. Article Google Scholar
Kellas, G., Ferraro, F. R., &Simpson, G. B. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and the timecourse of attentional allocation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,14, 601–609. Article Google Scholar
Masson, M. E. J. (1995). A distributed memory model of semantic priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 3–23. Article Google Scholar
McNamara, T. P. (1992). Theories of priming: I. Associative distance and lag.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 1173–1190. Article Google Scholar
Meyer, D. E., &Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations.Journal of Experimental Psychology,90, 227–234. ArticlePubMed Google Scholar
Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., &Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (1998). Does pizza prime coin? Perceptual priming in lexical decision and pronunciation.Journal of Memory & Language,38, 401–418. Article Google Scholar
Peereman, R., Content, A., &Bonin, P. (1998). Is perception a twoway street? The case of feedback consistency in visual word recognition.Journal of Memory & Language,39, 151–174. Article Google Scholar
Pexman, P. M., &Lupker, S. J. (1999). Ambiguity and visual word recognition: Can feedback explain both homophone and polysemy effects?Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,53, 323–334. PubMed Google Scholar
Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., &Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains.Psychological Review,103, 56–115. ArticlePubMed Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S., Waters, G. S., Sanders, M., &Langer, P. (1984). Pre- and postlexical loci of contextual effects on word recognition.Memory & Cognition,12, 315–328. Google Scholar
Stone, G. O., Vanhoy, M., &Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Perception is a two-way street: Feedforward and feedback phonology in visual word recognition.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 337–359. Article Google Scholar
Stone, G. O., &Van Orden, G. C. (1993). Strategic control of processing in word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 744–774. Article Google Scholar
Strain, E., Patterson, K., &Seidenberg, M. S. (1995). Semantic effects in single-word naming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1140–1154. Article Google Scholar
Tarraban, R., &McClelland, J. L. (1987). Conspiracy effects in word pronunciation.Journal of Memory & Language,26, 608–631. Article Google Scholar
Van Hell, J. G. (1998).Cross-language processing and bilingual memory organization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Van Orden, G. C., &Goldinger, S. D. (1994). The interdependence of form and function in cognitive systems explains perception of printed words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 1269–1291. Article Google Scholar
Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1989). New York: Gramercy Books.
Whitten, W. B., Suter, W. N., &Frank, M. L. (1979). Bidirectional Synonym Ratings of 464 Noun Pairs.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,18, 109–127. Article Google Scholar
Wilding, J., &Mohindra, N. (1983). Preferred synonyms for each noun of 279 synonym pairs.British Journal of Psychology,74, 91–106. Google Scholar
Ziegler, J. C., &Ferrand, L. (1998). Orthography shapes the perception of speech: The consistency effect in auditory word recognition.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 683–689. Google Scholar
Ziegler, J. C., Montant, M., &Jacobs, A. M. (1997). The feedback consistency effect in lexical decision and naming.Journal of Memory & Language,37, 533–554. Article Google Scholar
Ziegler, J. C., Stone, G. O., &Jacobs, A. M. (1997). What is the pronunciation for -ough and the spelling for /u/? A database for computing feedforward and feedback consistency in English.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,29, 600–618. Google Scholar