Article: Does contextual strength modulate the subordinate bias effect? A reply to Kellas and Vu

In their reply to Binder and Rayner (1998), Kellas and Vu (1999) raised questions about the criteria we used to exclude items from the Kellas, Martin, Yehling, Herman, and Vu (1995) stimulus set. In this reply, we further document these criteria and also address the issue of local versus published norms. We continue to believe that the stimulus set used by Kellas et al. (1995) was problematic. We also address the issue of strength of context, a concept used in earlier research that dealt with the subordinate bias effect. We argue that the contexts used by Kellas et al. (1995) were no stronger than the contexts previously used that established this effect. Therefore, we continue to think that our finding that context does not eliminate the subordinate bias effect is valid.

Citing Articles

The time course of contextual influences during lexical ambiguity resolution: evidence from distributional analyses of fixation durations.

Sheridan H, Reingold E Mem Cognit. 2012; 40(7):1122-31.

PMID: 22576974 DOI: 10.3758/s13421-012-0216-2.

LIFG-based attentional control and the resolution of lexical ambiguities in sentence context.

Vuong L, Martin R Brain Lang. 2010; 116(1):22-32.

PMID: 20971500 PMC: 2999637. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2010.09.012.

Using puns to study contextual influences on lexical ambiguity resolution: evidence from eye movements.

Sheridan H, Reingold E, Daneman M Psychon Bull Rev. 2009; 16(5):875-81.

PMID: 19815792 DOI: 10.3758/PBR.16.5.875.

The divided visual world paradigm: eye tracking reveals hemispheric asymmetries in lexical ambiguity resolution.

Meyer A, Federmeier K Brain Res. 2008; 1222:166-83.

PMID: 18585683 PMC: 2630578. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.05.033.

Situation-evoking stimuli, domain of reference, and the incremental interpretation of lexical ambiguity.

Vu H, Kellas G, Petersen E, Metcalf K Mem Cognit. 2004; 31(8):1302-15.

PMID: 15058691 DOI: 10.3758/bf03195813.

References

1.

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

2.

Paul S, Kellas G, Martin M, Clark M . Influence of contextual features on the activation of ambiguous word meanings. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1992; 18(4):703-17. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.18.4.703. View

3.

Rayner K, Frazier L . Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1989; 15(5):779-90. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.15.5.779. View

4.

Rayner K, Binder K, Duffy S . Contextual strength and the subordinate bias effect: comment on Martin, Vu, Kellas, and Metcalf. Q J Exp Psychol A. 1999; 52(4):841-52; discussion 853-5. DOI: 10.1080/713755868. View

5.

Binder K, Morris R . Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: effects of prior encounter and discourse topic. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1995; 21(5):1186-96. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.21.5.1186. View

Does Contextual Strength Modulate the Subordinate Bias Effect? A Reply to Kellas and Vu