Number-of-features effects and semantic processing (original) (raw)

References

• Anderson, J. R. (1983).The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  Google Scholar
• Balota, D. A., Ferraro, R. F., &Connor, L. T. (1991). On the early influence of meaning in word recognition: A review of the literature. In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.),The psychology of word meanings (pp. 187–221). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,22, 577–660.
  Google Scholar
• Becker, C. A. (1980). Semantic context effects in visual word recognition: An analysis of semantic strategies.Memory & Cognition,8, 493–512.
  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
• Buchanan, L., Westbury, C., &Burgess, C. (2001). Characterizing semantic space: Neighborhood effects in word recognition.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 531–544.
  Article Google Scholar
• Burgess, C., &Lund, K. (2000). The dynamics of meaning in memory. In E. Dietrich & A. Markman (Eds.),Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual and representational change in humans and machines (pp. 117–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., &Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,25, 257–271.
  Article Google Scholar
• Collins, A. M., &Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.Psychological Review,82, 407–428.
  Article Google Scholar
• Cree, G. S., &McRae, K. (2003). 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,132, 163–201.
  Article Google Scholar
• Cree, G. S., McRae, K., &McNorgan, C. (1999). An attractor model of lexical conceptual processing: Simulating semantic priming.Cognitive Science,23, 371–414.
  Article Google Scholar
• Dopkins, S., Morris, R. K., &Rayner, K. (1992). Lexical ambiguity and eye fixations in reading: A test of competing models of lexical ambiguity resolution.Journal of Memory & Language,31, 461–476.
  Article Google Scholar
• Forster, K. I. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. In R. J. Wales & E. Walker (Eds.),New approaches to language mechanisms (pp. 257–287). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  Google Scholar
• Forster, K. I. (1994). Computational modeling and elementary process analysis in visual word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 1292–1310.
  Article Google Scholar
• Glenberg, A. (1997). What memory is for.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,20, 1–55.
  Google Scholar
• Glenberg, A., &Robertson, D. A. (1999). Indexical understanding of instructions.Discourse Processes,28, 1–26.
  Article Google Scholar
• Glenberg, A., &Robertson, D. A. (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning.Journal of Memory & Language,43, 379–401.
  Article Google Scholar
• Hino, Y., &Lupker, S. J. (1996). Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: An alternative to lexical access accounts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,22, 1331–1356.
  Article Google Scholar
• Hino, Y., Lupker, S. J., &Pexman, P. M. (2002). Ambiguity and synonymy effects in lexical decision, naming, and semantic categorization tasks: Interactions between orthography, phonology, and semantics.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,28, 686–713.
  Article Google Scholar
• Hinton, G. E., &Shallice, T. (1991). Lesioning an attractor network: Investigations of acquired dyslexia.Psychological Review,98, 74–95.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Holcomb, P. J., Kounios, J., Anderson, J. E., &West, W. C. (1999). Dual-coding, context-availability, and concreteness effects in sentence comprehension: An electrophysiological investigation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 721–742.
  Article Google Scholar
• Jones, G. V. (1985). Deep dyslexia, imageability, and ease of predication.Brain & Language,24, 1–19.
  Article Google Scholar
• Kawamoto, A. H. (1993). Nonlinear dynamics in the resolution of lexical ambiguity: A parallel distributed processing account.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 474–516.
  Article Google Scholar
• Kellas, G., Paul, S. T., Martin, M., &Simpson, G. B. (1991). Contextual feature activation and meaning access. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.),Understanding word and sentence (pp. 47–71). Amsterdam: Elsevier, North-Holland.
  Chapter Google Scholar
• Kellas, G., &Vu, H. (1999). Strength of context does modulate the subordinate bias effect: A reply to Binder and Rayner.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,6, 511–517.
  Article Google Scholar
• KuČera, H., &Francis, W. (1967).Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
  Google Scholar
• Martin, C., Vu, H., Kellas, G., &Metcalf, K. (1999). Strength of discourse context as a determinant of the subordinate bias effect.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,52A, 813–839.
  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
• McClelland, J. L., &Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Pt. 1. An account of basic findings.Psychological Review,88, 375–407.
  Article Google Scholar
• McRae, K., de Sa, V. R., &Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,126, 99–130.
  Article Google Scholar
• Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure.American Psychologist,44, 1469–1481.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition.Psychological Review,76, 165–178.
  Article Google Scholar
• Ohlsson, S. (2000). Localist models are already here.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,23, 486–487.
  Article Google Scholar
• Paap, K. R., Newsome, S. L., McDonald, J. E., &Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1982). An activation-verification model for letter and word recognition: The word-superiority effect.Psychological Review,89, 573–594.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Page, M. (2000). Connectionist modeling in psychology: A localist manifesto.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,23, 443–512.
  Article Google Scholar
• Pecher, D. (2001). Perception is a two-way junction: Feedback semantics in word recognition.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 545–551.
  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
• Pexman, P. M., Lupker, S. J., &Hino, Y. (2002). The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: Number-of-features effects in lexical decision and naming tasks.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 542–549.
  Article Google Scholar
• Pexman, P. M., Lupker, S. J., &Jared, D. (2001). Homophone effects in lexical decision.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 139–156.
  Article Google Scholar
• Plaut, D. C. (1997). Structure and function in the lexical system: Insights from distributed models of word reading and lexical decision.Language & Cognitive Processes,12, 765–805.
  Article Google Scholar
• Plaut, D. C., &McClelland, J. L. (2000). Stipulating versus discovering representations.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,23, 489–491.
  Article 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.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Plaut, D. C., &Shallice, T. (1993). Deep dyslexia: A case study of connectionist neuropsychology.Cognitive Neuropsychology,10, 377–500.
  Article Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Binder, K., &Duffy, S. A. (1999). Contextual strength and the subordinate bias effect: Comment on Martin, Vu, Kellas, and Metcalf.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,52A, 841–852.
  Article Google Scholar
• Schwanenflugel, P., &Stowe, R. W. (1989). Context availability and the processing of abstract and concrete words in sentences.Reading Research Quarterly,24, 114–126.
  Article Google Scholar
• Seidenberg, M. S., &McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming.Psychological Review,96, 523–568.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Siakaluk, P. D., Buchanan, L., & Westbury, C. (2001, November).Effects of semantic distance in visual word recognition. Poster presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Orlando, FL.
• Van Orden, G. C., Pennington, B. F., &Stone, G. O. (1990). Word identification in reading and the promise of subsymbolic psycholinguistics.Psychological Review,97, 488–522.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Vu, H., &Kellas, G. (1999). Contextual strength and the subordinate bias effect: Reply to Rayner, Binder, and Duffy.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,52A, 853–855.
  Article Google Scholar
• Yates, M., Locker, L., & Simpson, G. B. (2001, November).Investigating the interaction of semantics and phonology in visual word recognition. Poster presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Orlando, FL.

Download references