The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: an MEG study.

We examined the neural correlates of semantic ambiguity by measuring changes in MEG recordings during a visual lexical decision task in which the properties of ambiguous words were manipulated. Words that are ambiguous between unrelated meanings (like bark, which can refer to a tree or to a dog) were accessed more slowly than words that have no unrelated meanings (such as cage). In addition, words that have many related senses (e.g., belt, which can be an article of clothing or, closely related in sense, a fan belt used in machinery) were accessed faster than words that have few related senses (e.g., ant). The findings are inconsistent with accounts that posit that both kinds of ambiguity involve separate lexical entries, but instead offer both behavioral and neurophysiological support for separate entry accounts only for homonymy, and a single-entry model of polysemy. The findings also provide neural correlates for a behavioral study of lexical ambiguity that demonstrated that the frequently reported ambiguity advantage in lexical decision tasks is not due to the presence of many unrelated meanings but to the presence of many related senses.

[1]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Coercion in sentence processing: evidence from eye-movements and self-paced reading , 2002 .

[2]  G. Murphy,et al.  Paper has been my ruin: Conceptual relations of polysemous senses , 2002 .

[3]  A. Marantz,et al.  A magnetoencephalographic component whose latency reflects lexical frequency. , 2001, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[4]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Integrating Form and Meaning: A Distributed Model of Speech Perception. , 1997 .

[5]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Remarks on Nominalization , 2020, Nominalization.

[6]  G Kellas,et al.  Lexical ambiguity and the timecourse of attentional allocation in word recognition. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  Jürgen Handke.  The structure of the lexicon , 1995 .

[8]  R Kakigi,et al.  Evoked magnetic responses during a word completion task. , 1999, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology. Supplement.

[9]  S. Lupker,et al.  Ambiguity and visual word recognition: can feedback explain both homophone and polysemy effects? , 1999, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[10]  K. Rayner.  Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[11]  S Kuriki,et al.  Magnetoencephalographic study on the cerebral neural activities related to the processing of visually presented characters. , 1996, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[12]  S. Kuriki,et al.  Neural processing of words in the human extrastriate visual cortex. , 1998, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[13]  L. Pylkkänen,et al.  Neuromagnetic Evidence for the Timing of Lexical Activation: An MEG Component Sensitive to Phonotactic Probability but Not to Neighborhood Density , 2002, Brain and Language.

[14]  David C. Plaut,et al.  Structure and Function in the Lexical System: Insights from Distributed Models of Word Reading and Lexical Decision , 1997 .

[15]  Christiane Fellbaum,et al.  Book Reviews: WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database , 1999, CL.

[16]  Sachiko Koyama,et al.  Reading of Japanese Kanji (morphograms) and Kana (syllabograms): a magnetoencephalographic study , 1998, Neuropsychologia.

[17]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  The Generative Lexicon , 1995, CL.

[18]  Matthew Flatt,et al.  PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers , 1993 .

[19]  A. Lehrer.  Polysemy, conventionality, and the structure of the lexicon , 1990 .

[20]  Alec Marantz,et al.  Neural correlates of the effects of morphological family frequency and family size: an MEG study , 2004, Cognition.

[21]  M J Pickering,et al.  The processing of metonymy: evidence from eye movements. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[22]  R. Salmelin,et al.  Semantic Cortical Activation in Dyslexic Readers , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[23]  G. Murphy,et al.  The Representation of Polysemous Words , 2001 .

[24]  W. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Making Sense of Semantic Ambiguity: Semantic Competition in Lexical Access , 2002 .

[25]  R. Salmelin,et al.  Distinct time courses of word and context comprehension in the left temporal cortex. , 1998, Brain : a journal of neurology.

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

[27]  M. Pickering,et al.  Obtaining a Figurative Interpretation of a Word: Support for Underspecification , 2001 .

[28]  R. H. Baayen,et al.  The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM) , 1996 .

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

[30]  G. Nunberg.  The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy , 1979 .

[31]  D. Swinney.  Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects , 1979 .

[32]  R. Kakigi,et al.  The effect of word repetition on evoked magnetic responses in the human brain , 2000 .

[33]  Tamiko Azuma,et al.  Why SAFE Is Better Than FAST: The Relatedness of a Word's Meanings Affects Lexical Decision Times , 1997 .