Disparate semantic ambiguity effects from semantic processing dynamics rather than qualitative task differences
暂无分享,去创建一个
[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 .