Semantic Richness Effects in Syntactic Classification: The Role of Feedback

Words with richer semantic representations are recognized faster across a range of lexical processing tasks. The most influential account of this finding is based on the idea that semantic richness effects are mediated by feedback from semantic-level to lower-level representations. In an earlier lexical decision study, Yap et al. (2015) tested this claim by examining the joint effects of stimulus quality and four semantic richness dimensions (imageability, number of features, semantic neighborhood density, semantic diversity). The results of that study showed that joint effects of stimulus quality and richness were generally additive, consistent with the idea that semantic feedback does not typically reach the earliest levels of representation in lexical decision. The present study extends this earlier work by investigating the joint effects of stimulus quality and the same four semantic richness dimensions on syntactic classification performance (is this a noun or verb?), which places relatively more emphasis on semantic processing. Additive effects of stimulus quality and richness were found for two of the four targeted dimensions (concreteness, number of features) while semantic neighborhood density and semantic diversity did not seem to influence syntactic classification response times. These findings provide further support against the view that semantic information reaches early letter-level processes.

[1]  Cross-modal repetition priming of heterographic homophones , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[2]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

[3]  Melvin J Yap,et al.  The Calgary semantic decision project: concrete/abstract decision data for 10,000 English words , 2016, Behavior Research Methods.

[4]  Ian S. Hargreaves,et al.  Is more always better? Effects of semantic richness on lexical decision, speeded pronunciation, and semantic classification , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[5]  Jeffrey N. Rouder,et al.  Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs , 2012 .

[6]  S. Lupker,et al.  Ambiguity and synonymy effects in lexical decision, naming, and semantic categorization tasks: interactions between orthography, phonology, and semantics. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[7]  Ian S. Hargreaves,et al.  There are many ways to be rich: Effects of three measures of semantic richness on visual word recognition , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[8]  D. Mewhort,et al.  Analysis of Response Time Distributions: An Example Using the Stroop Task , 1991 .

[9]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[10]  T. McNamara.  Semantic Priming: Perspectives from Memory and Word Recognition , 2005 .

[11]  Yasushi Hino,et al.  The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: Number-of-features effects in lexical decision and naming tasks , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[12]  P. Gomez,et al.  Decomposing encoding and decisional components in visual-word recognition: A diffusion model analysis , 2014, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[13]  Mark J. Huff,et al.  An Abundance of Riches: Cross-Task Comparisons of Semantic Richness Effects in Visual Word Recognition , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[14]  S. Lupker,et al.  Ambiguity and relatedness effects in semantic tasks: Are they due to semantic coding? , 2006 .

[15]  David A. Balota,et al.  Beyond mean response latency: Response time distributional analyses of semantic priming , 2008 .

[16]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Does Word Identification Proceed From Spelling to Sound to Meaning , 1991 .

[17]  David A. Balota,et al.  Visual Word Recognition , 2015, Linguistics.

[18]  M. Yap,et al.  The influence of emotion on lexical processing: Insights from RT distributional analysis , 2014, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[19]  Adam Jacobsson,et al.  IS MORE ALWAYS BETTER? , 2009 .

[20]  Penny M. Pexman,et al.  Introduction to the research topic meaning in mind: semantic richness effects in language processing , 2013, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[21]  D. Balota,et al.  Moving Beyond the Mean in Studies of Mental Chronometry , 2011 .

[22]  Paul D. Siakaluk,et al.  Effects of relative embodiment in lexical and semantic processing of verbs. , 2014, Acta psychologica.

[23]  Yasushi Hino,et al.  Effects of Polysemy in Lexical Decision and Naming: An Alternative to Lexical Access Accounts , 1996 .

[24]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[25]  Barbara J. Juhasz,et al.  Sensory experience ratings for over 5,000 mono- and disyllabic words , 2013, Behavior research methods.

[26]  David A. Balota,et al.  Attentional Control and Flexible Lexical Processing : Explorations of the Magic Moment of Word Recognition , 2007 .

[27]  Louise Connell,et al.  I see/hear what you mean: semantic activation in visual word recognition depends on perceptual attention. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[28]  M Coltheart,et al.  DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. , 2001, Psychological review.

[29]  Thomas A. Schreiber,et al.  The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[30]  Penny M. Pexman,et al.  Evidence for the activation of sensorimotor information during visual word recognition: The body–object interaction effect , 2008, Cognition.

[31]  Derek Besner,et al.  Neighbourhood density, word frequency, and spelling-sound regularity effects in naming: similarities and differences between skilled readers and the Dual Route Cascaded Computational model. , 2004, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[32]  T. Rogers,et al.  Semantic diversity: A measure of semantic ambiguity based on variability in the contextual usage of words , 2012, Behavior Research Methods.

[33]  D. Balota,et al.  Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[34]  Cyrus Shaoul,et al.  Exploring lexical co-occurrence space using HiDEx , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[35]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: part 1.: an account of basic findings , 1988 .

[36]  Marco Zorzi,et al.  Nested incremental modeling in the development of computational theories: the CDP+ model of reading aloud. , 2007, Psychological review.

[37]  James H. Neely,et al.  When Word Identification Gets Tough, Retrospective Semantic Processing Comes to the Rescue. , 2012 .

[38]  Melvin J Yap,et al.  Semantic richness effects in lexical decision: The role of feedback , 2015, Memory & cognition.

[39]  Max Coltheart,et al.  Access to the internal lexicon , 1977 .

[40]  James S. Magnuson,et al.  The Impact of Semantic Neighborhood Density on Semantic Access , 2006 .

[41]  Denis Cousineau,et al.  Fitting distributions using maximum likelihood: Methods and packages , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[42]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  Effects of Phonological and Orthographic Neighbourhood Density Interact in Visual Word Recognition , 2005, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[43]  P. Hoffman,et al.  Opposing Effects of Semantic Diversity in Lexical and Semantic Relatedness Decisions , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[44]  S. Joordens,et al.  Turning an advantage into a disadvantage: Ambiguity effects in lexical decision versus reading tasks , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[45]  D. Besner,et al.  Reading aloud: qualitative differences in the relation between stimulus quality and word frequency as a function of context. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[46]  D Jared,et al.  Homophone effects in lexical decision. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[47]  Amy Beth Warriner,et al.  Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas , 2014, Behavior research methods.

[48]  David A Balota,et al.  Additive and interactive effects on response time distributions in visual word recognition. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[49]  L. Gitlin,et al.  Introduction to Research , 2008, Fast Facts to Loving your Research Project.

[50]  Michael J Cortese,et al.  Imageability ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[51]  Derek Besner,et al.  On the additive effects of stimulus quality and word frequency in lexical decision: evidence for opposing interactive influences revealed by RT distributional analyses. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[52]  J Grainger,et al.  Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: a multiple read-out model. , 1996, Psychological review.

[53]  D. Besner,et al.  On the joint effects of repetition and stimulus quality in lexical decision: Looking to the past for a new way forward , 2011, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[54]  Rebecca Treiman,et al.  The English Lexicon Project , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[55]  S. Lupker,et al.  Ambiguity and Synonymy Effects in Lexical Decision, Naming, and Semantic Categorization Tasks: Interactions Between Orthography, Phonology, and Semantics , 2002 .

[56]  D. Balota.  The Role of Meaning in word Recognition , 2012 .

[57]  J. E.,et al.  Semantic Ambiguity Effects in Word Identification , 1996 .

[58]  D. Balota,et al.  On the Early Influence of Meaning in Word Recognition: A Review of the Literature , 2013 .

[59]  Derek Besner,et al.  Reading nonwords aloud: Results requiring change in the dual route cascaded model , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[60]  Penny M. Pexman,et al.  Flexible recruitment of semantic richness: context modulates body-object interaction effects in lexical-semantic processing , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[61]  Per B. Brockhoff,et al.  lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models , 2017 .

[62]  Dermot Lynott,et al.  Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[63]  Marco Zorzi,et al.  Beyond single syllables: Large-scale modeling of reading aloud with the Connectionist Dual Process (CDP++) model , 2010, Cognitive Psychology.

[64]  S. Sternberg.  Discovering mental processing stages: The method of additive factors. , 1998 .

[65]  S. Lupker,et al.  Semantic ambiguity and the process of generating meaning from print. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[66]  Maarten Casteren,et al.  Match: A program to assist in matching the conditions of factorial experiments , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[67]  George A. Miller,et al.  Introduction to WordNet: An On-line Lexical Database , 1990 .

[68]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things , 2005, Behavior research methods.