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. ArticlePubMed 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. ArticlePubMed 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. ArticlePubMed 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. ArticlePubMed 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. ArticlePubMed 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. ArticlePubMed 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.