Accessing different types of lexical semantic information: Evidence from priming.

Abstract

The types of semantic information that are automatically retrieved from the mental lexicon on hearing a word were investigated in 3 semantic priming experiments. The authors probed for activation of information about a word's category membership by using prime-target pairs that were members of a common semantic category (e.g., pig-horse) and 2 types of functional semantic properties: instrument relations (e.g., broom-floor) and script relations (e.g., restaurant-wine). The authors crossed type of semantic relation between prime and target with degree of normative association strength. In a paired and a single-word presentation version of an auditory lexicaldecision priming task, the authors found significant priming for category and functionally related targets, both with and without an additional associative relation. In all cases there was a significant associative boost. However, in a visual version of the single-word lexical-decision paradigm, a different pattern of results was found for each type of semantic relation. Category coordinates primed only when they were normatively associated, instrument relations primed both with and without association, and script relations primed in neither condition.The semantic priming paradigm introduced by Meyer and Schvaneveldt (1971) is one of the most widely used in psychological studies of memory and language. Many studies have demonstrated that participants' recognition of a target word, such as nurse, is facilitated when it is preceded by a related word like doctor, compared with a neutral or unrelated word (e.g., Antos, 1979;Becker, 1980;de Groot, 1984;McNamara, 1992aMcNamara, , 1992bNeely, 1991;Seidenberg, Waters, Sanders, & Langer, 1984). The main concern of these studies has been to characterize the mechanisms by which the context provided by the prime influences processing of the target word. However, priming tasks can also be used to investigate a different kind of question: What types of semantic information are automatically accessed when a word is heard or read? For a prime word to facilitate recognition of a particular target, it is necessary that the semantic information underpinning that prime-target relationship be accessed when the prime is processed. For example, if canary primes bird, this suggests that when canary is heard, information about its superordinate category is accessed. If we find that canary also primes small and yellow, it suggests that certain perceptual properties are also made available; if canary primes cage, it suggests that the information accessed includes the situation in which canaries are typically encountered. the semantic information accessed when a word is recognized by charting the range of prime-target relationships that support f acilitatory priming of a reaction time response such as lexical decision.The advantage of the priming task is that it can give a relatively transparent measure of the information that is normally made available to the comprehension system as a result of lexical access. This contrasts with off-li...

Modulation of the Lexical–Semantic Network by Auditory Semantic Priming: An Event-Related Functional MRI Study

“…Also, according to the predictions, semantic relation types differed in RTs. Subjects took longer to respond to a categorically related target word than to an associatively related target word (see also Neely, 1991;Moss et al, 1995). Thus, the present data do support the argument that the processing of associative and categorical semantic relations varies during lexical-semantic processing.…”

“…Finally, it has been argued that priming as a function of different semantic relation types might reflect different levels of processing (e.g., Lupker, 1987;Shelton and Martin, 1992;Moss et al, 1995). For example, both pure categorical (cow-dog) and associative categorical (cat-dog) relations produce semantic priming effects, but associative priming appears to be stronger than categorical priming (e.g., Shelton and Martin, 1992;Moss et al, 1995;Kotz, 1998).…”

“…For example, both pure categorical (cow-dog) and associative categorical (cat-dog) relations produce semantic priming effects, but associative priming appears to be stronger than categorical priming (e.g., Shelton and Martin, 1992;Moss et al, 1995;Kotz, 1998). Based on these results it has been proposed that categorical priming represents the activation of semantic representations at the conceptual level, while associative priming might reflect activation of associative relationships at the lexical form level, as associative connections between words form over time through co-occurrence of word forms in a language (e.g., Lupker, 1984;Moss et al, 1995).…”

Integrative priming occurs rapidly and uncontrollably during lexical processing.

“…Table 1, "Semantic"). The proportions of items in the .20 and .80 conditions paralleled those of Experiment 3A, with 45 highly similar filler items (e.g., ROBIN CANARY) taken from Lupker (1984), McRae and Boisvert (1998), and Moss et al (1995). The pairs with a nonword target were the same as in Experiment 3A.…”

Cognitive processes in associative and categorical priming: A diffusion model analysis.

“…Items are semantically related when they belong to the same category and thus share semantic properties (e.g., cat and cow are mammals) or when they are functionally related (e.g., broom and floor are related because brooms are used to sweep floors). Items are considered to be associated when a large percentage of people give the target as the first word they think of in response to the prime (see Moss, Ostrin, Tyler, & Marslen-Wilson, 1995, for an elaborate discussion of the distinction between semantic and associative priming). In addition to the relatedness dimension, priming paradigms differ in the type of task that is to be performed on the targets:…”