Core Semantic Links or Lexical Associations: Assessing the Nature of Responses in Word Association Tasks.
Associative relations
Semantic features
Semantic relation
Word association
Journal
Journal of psycholinguistic research
ISSN: 1573-6555
Titre abrégé: J Psycholinguist Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0333506
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
19
9
2018
medline:
31
5
2019
entrez:
19
9
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The processes tapped by the widely-used word association (WA) paradigm remain a matter of debate: while some authors consider them as driven by lexical co-occurrences, others emphasize the role of meaning-based connections. To test these contrastive hypotheses, we analyzed responses in a WA task in terms of their normative defining features (those describing the object denoted by the cue word). Results indicate that 72.5% of the responses had medium-to-high coincidence with such defining semantic features. Moreover, 75.51% of responses had medium-to-high values of Relevance (a measure of the importance of the feature for construing a given concept). Furthermore, most responses (62.7%) referred to elements of the situation in which the concept usually appears, followed by sensory properties (e.g., color) of the denoted object (27.86%). These results suggest that the processes behind WA tasks involve a reactivation of the cue item's semantic properties, particularly those most relevant to its core meaning.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30225580
doi: 10.1007/s10936-018-9601-8
pii: 10.1007/s10936-018-9601-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
243-256Subventions
Organisme : Fondo para la Investigación Científica y Tecnológica
ID : PICT 2015-0983
Organisme : Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata
ID : 15/H209
Organisme : Universidad Nacional de Córdoba
ID : 3182/07
Références
Neuropsychologia. 2000;38(9):1207-15
pubmed: 10865096
Mem Cognit. 2000 Sep;28(6):887-99
pubmed: 11105515
Psychon Bull Rev. 2000 Dec;7(4):618-30
pubmed: 11206202
Psychon Bull Rev. 2001 Sep;8(3):531-44
pubmed: 11700905
Brain Lang. 2002 Apr-Jun;81(1-3):120-30
pubmed: 12081386
Neuroimage. 2002 Dec;17(4):1761-72
pubmed: 12498750
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1992 Nov;18(6):1191-210
pubmed: 1447547
Brain Cogn. 2003 Nov;53(2):166-70
pubmed: 14607140
Psychon Bull Rev. 2003 Dec;10(4):785-813
pubmed: 15000531
Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004 Aug;36(3):577-83
pubmed: 15641446
Neuropsychologia. 2005;43(5):754-70
pubmed: 15721188
Behav Res Methods. 2005 Nov;37(4):547-59
pubmed: 16629288
Brain. 2006 Aug;129(Pt 8):2132-47
pubmed: 16815878
Behav Res Methods. 2008 Feb;40(1):213-31
pubmed: 18411545
J Physiol Paris. 2008 Jan-May;102(1-3):106-19
pubmed: 18468869
Neuroimage. 2009 Feb 1;44(3):1152-62
pubmed: 18977304
Cognition. 2009 May;111(2):151-67
pubmed: 19298961
Brain Res. 2009 May 13;1270:78-87
pubmed: 19306848
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 Nov;35(6):1454-64
pubmed: 19857016
Behav Res Methods. 2010 May;42(2):452-60
pubmed: 20479175
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 May 17;108(20):8520-4
pubmed: 21540329
J Neurol Psychopathol. 1936 Jul;17(65):27-40
pubmed: 21610842
Mem Cognit. 2014 Apr;42(3):355-69
pubmed: 24072588
Cereb Cortex. 2015 Nov;25(11):4319-33
pubmed: 25636912
Cogn Sci. 2016 Aug;40(6):1460-95
pubmed: 26453571
Behav Res Methods. 2017 Jun;49(3):1095-1106
pubmed: 27503302
Psychometrika. 1967 Sep;32(3):241-54
pubmed: 5234703
J Exp Child Psychol. 1997 May;65(2):171-237
pubmed: 9169209
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1997 Sep;23(5):1083-105
pubmed: 9293623