Semantic Neighborhood Effects on the Recognition of Ambiguous Words

Overview

Journal Mem Cognit

Specialty Psychology

Date 2003 Jul 23

PMID 12872867

Citations 9

Authors

Lawrence Locker Jr

Greg B Simpson

Mark Yates

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The effect of semantic neighborhood on the processing of ambiguous words was examined in two lexical decision experiments. Semantic neighborhood was defined in terms of semantic set size and network connectivity. In Experiment 1, the variables of semantic set size, network connectivity, and ambiguity were crossed. An ambiguity advantage was observed only within small-set low-connectivity words. In Experiment 2, the effect of network connectivity on the processing of words of high and low meaning relatedness was examined. Participants responded more rapidly to words of high meaning relatedness, relative to words of low meaning relatedness, but only within high-connectivity words. These results are interpreted within a framework in which both semantic feedback processes and meaning-level competition can affect the recognition of semantically ambiguous words.

Citing Articles

Working memory and lexical ambiguity resolution in Cantonese Chinese.

Yip M PLoS One. 2021; 16(3):e0248170.

PMID: 33690680 PMC: 7946315. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248170.

Heterogenous abstract concepts: is "ponder" different from "dissolve"?.

Muraki E, Sidhu D, Pexman P Psychol Res. 2020; 86(8):2478-2494.

PMID: 32776257 DOI: 10.1007/s00426-020-01398-x.

Meaning Inhibition and Sentence Processing in Chinese.

Yip M J Psycholinguist Res. 2014; 44(5):611-21.

PMID: 25015026 DOI: 10.1007/s10936-014-9308-4.

Competition and cooperation among similar representations: toward a unified account of facilitative and inhibitory effects of lexical neighbors.

Chen Q, Mirman D Psychol Rev. 2012; 119(2):417-30.

PMID: 22352357 PMC: 3328653. DOI: 10.1037/a0027175.

The time course of semantic richness effects in visual word recognition.

Rabovsky M, Sommer W, Abdel Rahman R Front Hum Neurosci. 2012; 6:11.

PMID: 22347855 PMC: 3278705. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00011.

References

Strain E, Patterson K, Seidenberg M . Semantic effects in single-word naming. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1995; 21(5):1140-54. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.21.5.1140. View

McRae K, de Sa V, Seidenberg M . On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1997; 126(2):99-130. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.126.2.99. View

Rayner K, Duffy S . Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Mem Cognit. 1986; 14(3):191-201. DOI: 10.3758/bf03197692. View

Gottlob L, Goldinger S, Stone G, Van Orden G . Reading homographs: orthographic, phonologic, and semantic dynamics. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1999; 25(2):561-74. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.25.2.561. View

Kellas G, Ferraro F, Simpson G . Lexical ambiguity and the timecourse of attentional allocation in word recognition. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1988; 14(4):601-9. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.14.4.601. View

Nelson D, Bennett D, Gee N, Schreiber T, McKinney V . Implicit memory: effects of network size and interconnectivity on cued recall. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1993; 19(4):747-64. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.19.4.747. View

Van Orden G, Goldinger S . Interdependence of form and function in cognitive systems explains perception of printed words. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1994; 20(6):1269-91. View

Hino Y, Lupker S, Pexman P . Ambiguity and synonymy effects in lexical decision, naming, and semantic categorization tasks: interactions between orthography, phonology, and semantics. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002; 28(4):686-713. View

Forster K, Bednall E . Terminating and exhaustive search in lexical access. Mem Cognit. 2011; 4(1):53-61. DOI: 10.3758/BF03213255. View

10.

Pexman P, Lupker S . Ambiguity and visual word recognition: can feedback explain both homophone and polysemy effects?. Can J Exp Psychol. 2000; 53(4):323-34. DOI: 10.1037/h0087320. View

11.

Buchanan L, Westbury C, Burgess C . Characterizing semantic space: neighborhood effects in word recognition. Psychon Bull Rev. 2001; 8(3):531-44. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196189. View

12.

Piercey C, Joordens S . Turning an advantage into a disadvantage: ambiguity effects in lexical decision versus reading tasks. Mem Cognit. 2000; 28(4):657-66. DOI: 10.3758/bf03201255. View

13.

Joordens S, Becker S . The long and short of semantic priming effects in lexical decision. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1997; 23(5):1083-105. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.23.5.1083. View

14.

Pexman P, Lupker S, Hino Y . The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: number-of-features effects in lexical decision and naming tasks. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002; 9(3):542-9. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196311. View

15.

Lucas M . Semantic priming without association: a meta-analytic review. Psychon Bull Rev. 2001; 7(4):618-30. DOI: 10.3758/bf03212999. View

16.

Twilley L, Dixon P, Taylor D, Clark K . University of Alberta norms of relative meaning frequency for 566 homographs. Mem Cognit. 1994; 22(1):111-26. DOI: 10.3758/bf03202766. View

17.

Pecher D . Perception is a two-way junction: feedback semantics in word recognition. Psychon Bull Rev. 2001; 8(3):545-51. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196190. View

18.

Atchley R, Burgess C, Keeney M . The effect of time course and context on the facilitation of semantic features in the cerebral hemispheres. Neuropsychology. 1999; 13(3):389-403. DOI: 10.1037//0894-4105.13.3.389. View

19.

Gernsbacher M . Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1984; 113(2):256-81. PMC: 4311894. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.113.2.256. View

20.

Millis M, Button S . The effect of polysemy on lexical decision time: now you see it, now you don't. Mem Cognit. 1989; 17(2):141-7. DOI: 10.3758/bf03197064. View