Connectionist perspectives on lexical representation

[1]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory. , 1995, Psychological review.

[2]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Hippocampal conjunctive encoding, storage, and recall: Avoiding a trade‐off , 1994, Hippocampus.

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

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

[5]  Jeffrey S Bowers,et al.  On the biological plausibility of grandmother cells: implications for neural network theories in psychology and neuroscience. , 2009, Psychological review.

[6]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Learning and Applying Contextual Constraints in Sentence Comprehension , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[7]  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.

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

[9]  John J. L. Morton,et al.  Interaction of information in word recognition. , 1969 .

[10]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Understanding normal and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains. , 1996, Psychological review.

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

[12]  W. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  The temporal structure of spoken language understanding , 1980, Cognition.

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

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

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

[16]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Locating object knowledge in the brain: comment on Bowers's (2009) attempt to revive the grandmother cell hypothesis. , 2010, Psychological review.

[17]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Computing the meanings of words in reading: cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. , 2004, Psychological review.

[18]  Joan L. Bybee.  Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form , 1985 .

[19]  David C. Plaut,et al.  Are non-semantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing? , 2000 .

[20]  David C. Plaut,et al.  A connectionist model of sentence comprehension and production , 2002 .

[21]  Sally Andrews,et al.  From inkmarks to ideas : current issues in lexical processing , 2006 .

[22]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Sentence comprehension: A parallel distributed processing approach , 1989, Language and Cognitive Processes.

[23]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in priming: evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

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

[26]  Javier R. Movellan,et al.  Learning Continuous Probability Distributions with Symmetric Diffusion Networks , 1993, Cogn. Sci..