Disparate semantic ambiguity effects from semantic processing dynamics rather than qualitative task differences

ABSTRACT A core challenge in the semantic ambiguity literature is understanding why the number and relatedness among a word's interpretations are associated with different effects in different tasks. An influential account (Hino et al., 2006) attributes these effects to qualitative differences in the response system. We propose instead that these effects reflect changes over time in settling dynamics within semantics. We evaluated the accounts using a single task, lexical decision, thus holding the overall configuration of the response system constant, and manipulated task difficulty – and the presumed amount of semantic processing – by varying nonword wordlikeness and stimulus contrast. We observed that as latencies increased, the effects generally (but not universally) shifted from those observed in standard lexical decision to those typically observed in different tasks with longer latencies. These results highlight the importance of settling dynamics in explaining many ambiguity effects, and of integrating theories of semantic dynamics and response systems.

[1]  David C. Plaut,et al.  Strategic Control Over Rate of Processing in Word Reading: A Computational Investigation of the Tempo-Naming Task , 2000 .

[2]  M. Kutas,et al.  Ambiguous words in context: An event-related potential analysis of the time course of meaning activation ☆ ☆☆ , 1987 .

[3]  D. Barr,et al.  Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. , 2013, Journal of memory and language.

[4]  R. Baayen,et al.  Analyzing Reaction Times , 2010 .

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

[6]  Manuel Perea,et al.  Is the go/no-go lexical decision task an alternative to the yes/no lexical decision task? , 2002, Memory & cognition.

[7]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Connectionist and diffusion models of reaction time. , 1999, Psychological review.

[8]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

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

[10]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[11]  H. H. Clark The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. , 1973 .

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

[13]  A. H. Kawamoto Nonlinear dynamics in the resolution of lexical ambiguity: A parallel distributed processing account. , 1993 .

[14]  M. Gernsbacher Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

[16]  Alexandra A. Cleland,et al.  Polysemy in the mental lexicon: relatedness and frequency affect representational overlap , 2016 .

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

[18]  John N. Williams Processing polysemous words in context: Evidence for interrelated meanings , 1992 .

[19]  Alexandra A. Cleland,et al.  Processing Semantic Ambiguity: Different Loci for Meanings and Senses , 2006 .

[20]  Blair C. Armstrong,et al.  The what, when, where, and how of visual word recognition , 2014, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[21]  David C. Plaut,et al.  Settling dynamics in distributed networks explain task differences in semantic ambiguity effects: Computational and behavioral evidence , 2008 .

[22]  J. Raaijmakers,et al.  How to deal with "The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy": Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. , 1999 .

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

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

[25]  Matthew A Lambon Ralph,et al.  What’s in a word? A parametric study of semantic influences on visual word recognition , 2012, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[26]  Yasushi Hino,et al.  The relatedness-of-meaning effect for ambiguous words in lexical-decision tasks: when does relatedness matter? , 2010, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[27]  D. Besner,et al.  Visual word recognition: a multistage activation model. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[28]  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.

[29]  Blair C Armstrong,et al.  SOS! An algorithm and software for the stochastic optimization of stimuli , 2012, Behavior research methods.

[30]  David C. Plaut,et al.  Strategic control in word reading: evidence from speeded responding in the tempo-naming task. , 2000 .

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

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

[33]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Pre- and postlexical loci of contextual effects on word recognition , 1984, Memory & cognition.

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

[35]  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.

[36]  Derek Besner,et al.  When banking on meaning is not (yet) money in the bank: Explorations in connectionist modeling. , 1994 .

[37]  Liina Pylkkänen,et al.  The Representation of Polysemy: MEG Evidence , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[38]  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.

[39]  Vanessa Taler,et al.  Comprehension of lexical ambiguity in healthy aging, mild cognitive impairment, and mild Alzheimer's disease , 2009, Neuropsychologia.

[40]  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.

[41]  Manuel Perea,et al.  Is the go/no-go lexical decision task preferable to the yes/no task with developing readers? , 2011, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[42]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses ☆ , 1990 .

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

[44]  Steve Joordens,et al.  Modeling performance at the trial level within a diffusion framework: a simple yet powerful method for increasing efficiency via error detection and correction. , 2009, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[45]  David E. Rumelhart,et al.  An Interactive Activation Model of the Effect of Context in Perception. Part 2 , 1980 .

[46]  David Poeppel,et al.  The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: an MEG study. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[47]  H. Bergh,et al.  Examples of Mixed-Effects Modeling with Crossed Random Effects and with Binomial Data. , 2008 .

[48]  Blair C Armstrong,et al.  Relative meaning frequencies for 578 homonyms in two Spanish dialects: A cross-linguistic extension of the English eDom norms , 2016, Behavior research methods.

[49]  P. Dixon,et al.  University of Alberta norms of relative meaning frequency for 566 homographs , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[50]  Barak A. Pearlmutter Learning State Space Trajectories in Recurrent Neural Networks , 1989, Neural Computation.

[51]  Blair C Armstrong,et al.  eDom: Norming software and relative meaning frequencies for 544 English homonyms , 2012, Behavior Research Methods.

[52]  Greg B. Simpson,et al.  Semantic neighborhood effects on the recognition of ambiguous words , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[53]  J. Jastrzembski Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon , 1981, Cognitive Psychology.

[54]  Ron Borowsky,et al.  Parallel distributed processing and lexical-semantic effects in visual word recognition: are a few stages necessary? , 2006, Psychological review.

[55]  D. Titone,et al.  Making sense of word senses: the comprehension of polysemy depends on sense overlap. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[56]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  A note on modeling accumulation of information when the rate of accumulation changes over time , 1980 .

[57]  Blair C. Armstrong,et al.  PSPs and ERPs: Applying the dynamics of post-synaptic potentials to individual units in simulation of temporally extended Event-Related Potential reading data , 2014, Brain and Language.

[58]  S. Sternberg Memory-scanning: mental processes revealed by reaction-time experiments. , 1969, American scientist.

[59]  Ian S. Hargreaves,et al.  Tolerating ambiguity: ambiguous words recruit the left inferior frontal gyrus in absence of a behavioral effect. , 2011, Experimental psychology.

[60]  H. Rubenstein,et al.  Homographic entries in the internal lexicon , 1970 .

[61]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  The N400 as a snapshot of interactive processing: Evidence from regression analyses of orthographic neighbor and lexical associate effects. , 2011, Psychophysiology.

[62]  D. Balota,et al.  Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[63]  Mollie E. Brooks,et al.  Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. , 2009, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[64]  D. Share On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: the perils of overreliance on an "outlier" orthography. , 2008, Psychological bulletin.

[65]  David C. Plaut,et al.  Yoked criteria shifts in decision system adaptation: Computational and behavioral investigations , 2009 .

[66]  D. Bates,et al.  Linear Mixed-Effects Models using 'Eigen' and S4 , 2015 .

[67]  David C. Plaut,et al.  Simulating Overall and Trial-by-Trial Effects in Response Selection with a Biologically-plausible Connectionist Network , 2013, CogSci.

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

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

[70]  M. Coltheart,et al.  358,534 nonwords: The ARC Nonword Database , 2002, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

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

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

[73]  D. Plaut,et al.  A neurally plausible Parallel Distributed Processing model of Event-Related Potential word reading data , 2012, Brain and Language.

[74]  D. Plaut,et al.  Individual and developmental differences in semantic priming: empirical and computational support for a single-mechanism account of lexical processing. , 2000, Psychological review.

[75]  T. Rogers,et al.  Object categorization: reversals and explanations of the basic-level advantage. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[76]  Alexandra A. Cleland,et al.  Polysemy Advantage with Abstract But Not Concrete Words , 2014, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.

[77]  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.

[78]  Karsten Steinhauer,et al.  Not all ambiguous words are created equal: An EEG investigation of homonymy and polysemy , 2012, Brain and Language.

[79]  P. Mahalanobis On the generalized distance in statistics , 1936 .

[80]  David C. Plaut,et al.  Inducing homonymy effects via stimulus quality and (not) nonword difficulty: Implications for models of semantic ambiguity and word recognition , 2011, CogSci.

[81]  Shari R. Baum,et al.  Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words , 2007, Journal of Neurolinguistics.

[82]  Ken McRae,et al.  Category - Specific semantic deficits , 2008 .

[83]  Penny M. Pexman,et al.  Multiple meanings are not necessarily a disadvantage in semantic processing: Evidence from homophone effects in semantic categorisation , 2007 .

[84]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model. , 2001, Psychological review.

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

[86]  M. Kutas,et al.  Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. , 1980, Science.

[87]  Itamar Lerner,et al.  What can we learn from learning models about sensitivity to letter-order in visual word recognition? , 2014, Journal of memory and language.

[88]  Blair C. Armstrong,et al.  Applying the dynamics of post-synaptic potentials to individual units in simulation of temporally extended ERP reading data , 2013, CogSci.

[89]  T. Shallice,et al.  Deep Dyslexia: A Case Study of , 1993 .

[90]  James S. Magnuson,et al.  Effect of Representational Distance Between Meanings on Recognition of Ambiguous Spoken Words , 2009, Cogn. Sci..

[91]  Ram Frost,et al.  A universal approach to modeling visual word recognition and reading: Not only possible, but also inevitable , 2012, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[92]  Marie Bienkowski,et al.  Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[93]  Christopher T. Kello,et al.  Strategic control in word reading: evidence from speeded responding in the tempo-naming task. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[94]  P. Tabossi Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts , 1988 .