Is There an Orthographic Boost for Ambiguous Words During Their Processing?
Ambiguity advantage
Orthographic processing
Semantic ambiguity
Two-alternative forced-choice task
Word recognition
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:
Apr 2019
Apr 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
28
11
2018
medline:
11
7
2019
entrez:
28
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The present study explores the issue of why ambiguous words are recognized faster than unambiguous ones during word recognition. To this end we contrasted two different hypotheses: the semantic feedback hypothesis (Hino and Lupker in J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 22:1331-1356, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.22.6.1331 ), and the hypothesis proposed by Borowsky and Masson (J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 22:63-85, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.1.63 ). Although both hypotheses agree that ambiguous words benefit during recognition in that they engage more semantic activation, they disagree as to whether or not this greater semantic activation feeds back to the orthographic level, hence speeding up the orthographic coding of ambiguous words. Participants were presented with ambiguous and unambiguous words in two tasks, a lexical decision task (LDT) and a two-alternative forced-choice task (2AFC). We found differences between ambiguous and unambiguous words in both the LDT and the 2AFC tasks. These results suggest that the orthographic coding of ambiguous words is boosted during word processing. This finding lends support to the semantic feedback hypothesis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30478738
doi: 10.1007/s10936-018-9616-1
pii: 10.1007/s10936-018-9616-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
519-534Subventions
Organisme : Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness
ID : PSI2015-63525-P (MINECO/FEDER)
Organisme : Research Promotion Program of the Universitat Rovira i Virgili
ID : 2016PFR-URV-B2-37
Organisme : Foundation for Science and Technology
ID : IF/00784/2013/CP1158/CT0013
Organisme : Universitat Rovira i Virgili
ID : 2015PMF-PIPF-16
Références
Psychol Res. 2000;63(2):159-62
pubmed: 10946589
Psychon Bull Rev. 2000 Dec;7(4):662-7
pubmed: 11206207
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 Jul;28(4):686-713
pubmed: 12109762
Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2003 Feb;35(1):116-24
pubmed: 12723786
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 Nov;30(6):1252-70
pubmed: 15521802
Psychol Sci. 2006 Apr;17(4):287-91
pubmed: 16623684
Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Feb;15(1):161-7
pubmed: 18605497
Psychol Rev. 2008 Jul;115(3):577-600
pubmed: 18729592
J Psycholinguist Res. 2010 Feb;39(1):1-19
pubmed: 19582583
Can J Exp Psychol. 2010 Sep;64(3):180-96
pubmed: 20873915
Mem Cognit. 1976 Jan;4(1):53-61
pubmed: 21286959
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1990 Feb;16(1):65-76
pubmed: 2137524
Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Apr 17;6:72
pubmed: 22529787
Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Aug 14;6:234
pubmed: 22912610
Behav Res Methods. 2013 Sep;45(3):765-71
pubmed: 23271155
Behav Res Methods. 2013 Dec;45(4):1246-58
pubmed: 23468181
Mem Cognit. 1989 Mar;17(2):141-7
pubmed: 2927312
J Psycholinguist Res. 2018 Jun;47(3):679-698
pubmed: 29280032
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1988 Nov;14(4):601-9
pubmed: 2974871
Cogn Psychol. 1983 Apr;15(2):197-237
pubmed: 6617135
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1996 Dec;125(4):403-21
pubmed: 8945790
Psychol Rev. 1997 Apr;104(2):319-43
pubmed: 9127584