Individual Differences in the Joint Effects of Semantic Priming and Word Frequency: The Role of Lexical Integrity

Overview

Journal J Mem Lang

Publisher Elsevier

Date 2010 Feb 18

PMID 20161653

Citations 29

Authors

Melvin J Yap

Chi-Shing Tse

David A Balota

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Word frequency and semantic priming effects are among the most robust effects in visual word recognition, and it has been generally assumed that these two variables produce interactive effects in lexical decision performance, with larger priming effects for low-frequency targets. The results from four lexical decision experiments indicate that the joint effects of semantic priming and word frequency are critically dependent upon differences in the vocabulary knowledge of the participants. Specifically, across two Universities, additive effects of the two variables were observed in participants with more vocabulary knowledge, while interactive effects were observed in participants with less vocabulary knowledge. These results are discussed with reference to Borowsky and Besner's (1993) multistage account and Plaut and Booth's (2000) single-mechanism model. In general, the findings are also consistent with a flexible lexical processing system that optimizes performance based on processing fluency and task demands.

Citing Articles

The Slow Development of Real-Time Processing: Spoken-Word Recognition as a Crucible for New Thinking About Language Acquisition and Language Disorders.

McMurray B, Apfelbaum K, Tomblin J Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2023; 31(4):305-315.

PMID: 37663784 PMC: 10473872. DOI: 10.1177/09637214221078325.

Visual Motor Reaction Times Predict Receptive and Expressive Language Development in Early School-Age Children.

Alhamdan A, Murphy M, Crewther S Brain Sci. 2023; 13(6).

PMID: 37371443 PMC: 10295862. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci13060965.

CCLOOW: Chinese children's lexicon of oral words.

Li L, Zhao W, Song M, Wang J, Cai Q Behav Res Methods. 2023; 56(2):846-859.

PMID: 36881355 DOI: 10.3758/s13428-023-02077-6.

The influence of oral vocabulary knowledge on individual differences in a computational model of reading.

Chang Y Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):1680.

PMID: 36717571 PMC: 9886906. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-28559-3.

CLAD: A corpus-derived Chinese Lexical Association Database.

Lin S, Chen H, Chang T, Lee W, Sung Y Behav Res Methods. 2019; 51(5):2310-2336.

PMID: 31429062 PMC: 6797702. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-019-01208-2.

References

Balota D, Spieler D . Word frequency, repetition, and lexicality effects in word recognition tasks: beyond measures of central tendency. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1999; 128(1):32-55. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.128.1.32. View

Cousineau D, Brown S, Heathcote A . Fitting distributions using maximum likelihood: methods and packages. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2005; 36(4):742-56. DOI: 10.3758/bf03206555. View

Kinoshita S, Mozer M . How lexical decision is affected by recent experience: symmetric versus asymmetric frequency-blocking effects. Mem Cognit. 2006; 34(3):726-42. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193591. View

Heathcote A, Brown S, Mewhort D . Quantile maximum likelihood estimation of response time distributions. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002; 9(2):394-401. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196299. View

Farmer M, Klein R . The evidence for a temporal processing deficit linked to dyslexia: A review. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013; 2(4):460-93. DOI: 10.3758/BF03210983. View

Becker C . Semantic context effects in visual word recognition: an analysis of semantic strategies. Mem Cognit. 1980; 8(6):493-512. DOI: 10.3758/bf03213769. View

Borowsky R, Besner D . Parallel distributed processing and lexical-semantic effects in visual word recognition: are a few stages necessary?. Psychol Rev. 2006; 113(1):181-95. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.1.181. View

Van Zandt T . How to fit a response time distribution. Psychon Bull Rev. 2000; 7(3):424-65. DOI: 10.3758/bf03214357. View

Mulatti C, Reynolds M, Besner D . Neighborhood effects in reading aloud: new findings and new challenges for computational models. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006; 32(4):799-810. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.4.799. View

10.

Plaut D, Booth J . Individual and developmental differences in semantic priming: empirical and computational support for a single-mechanism account of lexical processing. Psychol Rev. 2000; 107(4):786-823. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.107.4.786. View

11.

Hutchison K . Attentional control and the relatedness proportion effect in semantic priming. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007; 33(4):645-62. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.645. View

12.

Yap M, Balota D, Cortese M, Watson J . Single- versus dual-process models of lexical decision performance: insights from response time distributional analysis. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006; 32(6):1324-44. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.6.1324. View

13.

Ratcliff R, Gomez P, McKoon G . A diffusion model account of the lexical decision task. Psychol Rev. 2004; 111(1):159-82. PMC: 1403837. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.159. View

14.

Zachary R, Paulson M, Gorsuch R . Estimating WAIS IQ from the Shipley Institute of Living Scale using continuously adjusted age norms. J Clin Psychol. 1985; 41(6):820-31. DOI: 10.1002/1097-4679(198511)41:6<820::aid-jclp2270410616>3.0.co;2-x. View

15.

Borowsky R, Besner D . Visual word recognition: a multistage activation model. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1993; 19(4):813-40. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.19.4.813. View

16.

Spieler D, Balota D, Faust M . Levels of selective attention revealed through analyses of response time distributions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000; 26(2):506-26. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.26.2.506. View

17.

Andrews S, Heathcote A . Distinguishing common and task-specific processes in word identification: a matter of some moment?. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001; 27(2):514-44. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.27.2.514. View

18.

Tainturier M, Tremblay M, Lecours A . Educational level and the word frequency effect: a lexical decision investigation. Brain Lang. 1992; 43(3):460-74. DOI: 10.1016/0093-934x(92)90112-r. View

19.

Rouder J, Speckman P . An evaluation of the Vincentizing method of forming group-level response time distributions. Psychon Bull Rev. 2004; 11(3):419-27. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196589. View

20.

Faust M, Balota D, Spieler D, Ferraro F . Individual differences in information-processing rate and amount: implications for group differences in response latency. Psychol Bull. 1999; 125(6):777-99. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.777. View