Automatic semantic similarity priming.

Masamune, Ken; Boisvert, Stephen

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.24.3.558

Cited by 283 publications

(343 citation statements)

References 61 publications

(144 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

313

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…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.…”

Section: Experiments 3bmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Because integration is known to affect Integrative Priming 14 perceived similarity (Bassok & Medin, 1997;Estes, 2003a;Jones & Love, 2007;Simmons & Estes, 2008;Wisniewski & Bassok, 1999), it was important to emphasize to participants that they should rate featural similarity (McRae & Boisvert, 1998). Thus, the instructions stated the following: "For example, DOTS and STRIPES are similar (both are types of patterns or designs).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Integrative priming occurs rapidly and uncontrollably during lexical processing.

Estes

Jones

2009

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrative Priming 2 Abstract Lexical priming, whereby a prime word facilitates recognition of a related target word (e.g., nurse doctor), is typically attributed to association strength, semantic similarity, or compound familiarity. Here we demonstrate a novel type of lexical priming that occurs among unassociated, dissimilar, and unfamiliar concepts (e.g., horse doctor). Specifically, integrative priming occurs when a prime word can be easily integrated with a target word to create a unitary representation. Across several manipulations of timing (stimulus onset asynchrony) and list context (relatedness proportion), lexical decisions for the target word were facilitated when it could be integrated with the prime word. Moreover, integrative priming was dissociated from both associative priming and semantic priming, but was comparable in terms of both prevalence (across participants) and magnitude (within-participants). This observation of integrative priming challenges current models of lexical priming, such as spreading activation, distributed representation, expectancy, episodic retrieval, and compound cue models. We suggest that integrative priming may be explained by a role activation model of relational integration. KEYWORDS: associative priming, integrative priming, lexical decision, relational integration, semantic priming, word recognition. Integrative Priming 3One of the most robust phenomena of psychology is the lexical priming effect, whereby responding to a target word is facilitated by the prior presentation of a related prime word (for extensive review see Hutchison, 2003;Lucas, 2000;McNamara, 2005;Neely, 1991). In a seminal experiment, Meyer and Schvaneveldt (1971) simultaneously presented two letter strings in a lexical decision task (LDT; i.e., word/nonword judgments). They found that related words (e.g., BREAD -BUTTER) elicited faster lexical decisions than unrelated words (e.g., NURSE -BUTTER). Since that classic demonstration (see also Meyer, Schvaneveldt & Ruddy, 1975;Tweedy, Lapinski & Schvaneveldt, 1977), researchers have distinguished two broad classes of relation between primes and targets. Association refers to a relation in language use, typically defined as the proportion of participants who produce a given target word (e.g., PEPPER) in response to a cue word (e.g., SALT) in the free association task. Similarity refers to a relation in word meaning, typically defined as the degree of feature overlap between the concepts (e.g., DOG -WOLF). Thus one may distinguish associative priming, which is based on association strength, from semantic priming, which is based on featural similarity (see e.g., Fischler, 1977;Hutchison, 2003;Lucas, 2000;McNamara, 2005;McRae & Boisvert, 1998; Moss, Ostrin, Tyler & MarslenWilson, 1995;Shelton & Martin, 1992;Thompson-Schill, Kurtz & Gabrieli, 1998). The purpose of the present study is to demonstrate and characterize another source of lexical priming that is independent of both associations and similarity. Namely, we examine the influence of relational in...

show abstract

Section: Experiments 3bmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrative priming occurs rapidly and uncontrollably during lexical processing.

Estes

Jones

2009

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to the semantic activation view, associated categories such as "Fruit" and "Vegetables" share semantic features and properties (e.g., they can both be round or long; can be cooked, and so on) thus, crosscategorically, "apple" can activate/prime "potato" (cf. McRae & Boisvert, 1998). On the basis of the competitor-inhibition view (M. C. Anderson, 2003), disruption should therefore be particularly great when having to ignore irrelevant items drawn from a category associated to the to-be-generated category-exemplars.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrieval from memory: Vulnerable or inviolable?

Jones¹,

Marsh²,

Hughes³

2012

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We show that retrieval from semantic memory is vulnerable even to the mere presence of speech. Irrelevant speech impairs semantic fluency-namely lexical retrieval cued by a semantic category name-more than meaningless speech (reversed speech or nonwords). Moreover, speech related semantically to the retrieval category is more disruptive than unrelated speech. That phonemic fluency-in which participants are cued with the first letter of words they are to report-was not disrupted by the mere presence of speech, only by speech in a related phonemic category, suggests that distraction is not mediated by executive processing load. The pattern of sensitivity to different properties of sound as a function of the type of retrieval cue is in line with an interference-by-process approach to auditory distraction.Keywords: Auditory Distraction, Lexical Retrieval, Semantic Fluency, Phonemic Fluency Retrieval and Distraction 3 Lexical retrieval is a fundamental capacity of language that underpins oral and written language production, involving the access and selection of context-appropriate lexical items to express an intended meaning. One of the most frequently-used tests of lexical retrieval is semantic fluency, in which a semantic category cue is given (e.g., 'Animals') and the task is to retrieve from long-term semantic memory as many examples as possible from that category (Bousfield & Sedgewick, 1944;Newcombe, 1969). We ask whether this process of search by semantic criterion is vulnerable to the presence of concurrent to-be-ignored sound, given that there is a body of work suggesting that retrieval processes generally are largely inviolable to all but the most attentionally-demanding concurrent tasks (Craik, Govoni, Naveh-Benjamin, & N. D. Anderson, 1996). We also attempt to discover how the lexical and semantic status of the sound's contents determine the degree to which semantic fluency is impaired, with a view to revealing the level of abstraction at which distraction occurs. Phonemic fluency (e.g., Benton, 1968), in which the criterion for production is phonemic, not semantic, is also studied in order to provide baseline conditions that share some processes-including key executive processes-with semantic fluency, but not those related to semantic retrieval. This allows examination of whether semantic auditory distraction has a process-specific effect on semantic retrieval, namely whether it only occurs when the focal task also requires semantic (but not phonemic) retrieval, or whether common (executive) processes are vulnerable.Fluency tasks have not been used to study auditory distraction and the work reported here is the first of its kind. Their attraction as a research tool for students of distraction is that they are relatively process-pure in terms of retrieval. Evidence collected so far relating to disruption by sound of lexical-semantic processing has used, almost exclusively, list-based tasks, ones that are not to the same degree process-pure as the fluency task. Because they are list-based, perform...

show abstract

“…Fast decay/rapid suppression of activation for Related-compatible semantic features was unanticipated for the NBD group, because in divided visual field conditions young adults demonstrate sustained priming for these features regardless of the visual field/hemisphere of initial stimulus presentation (Atchley et al, 1999) and because with central prime presentation, weakly related meanings remain active at long prime-target intervals (Becker, 1980;McRae & Boisvert, 1998). This unexpected finding cannot be assimilated easily by either of the two main extant proposals about age-related changes in hemispheric function.…”

Section: Accuracy Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, when primes are presented in the centre of the visual fields, in standard reading conditions, subordinate meanings are no longer active at a long interval postprime presentation, even for adults without brain damage (Hino, Lupker & Sears, 1997;Simpson & Burgess, 1985). Weakly related meanings remain active, however (Becker, 1980;McRae & Boisvert, 1998). With each of these factors in mind, the following three outcomes were deemed possible for RHD adults' maintenance of activation for weakly related semantic features of unambiguous words.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Activation and maintenance of peripheral semantic features of unambiguous words after right hemisphere brain damage in adults

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background-The right cerebral hemisphere (RH) sustains activation of subordinate, secondary, less common, and/or distantly related meanings of words. Much of the pertinent data come from studies of homonyms, but some evidence also suggests that the RH has a unique maintenance function in relation to unambiguous nouns. In a divided visual field priming study, Atchley, Burgess, and Keeney (1999) reported that only left visual field/RH presentation yielded evidence of continuing activation of peripheral semantic features that were incompatible with the most common image or representation of their corresponding nouns (e.g., rotten for "apple"). Activation for weakly related features that were compatible with the dominant representation (e.g., crunchy) was sustained over time regardless of the visual field/hemisphere of initial stimulus input. Several studies report that unilateral right hemisphere brain damage (RHD) in adults affects the RH's meaning maintenance function, but this work also has centred on homonyms, and/or more recently metonymic and metaphoric polysemous words.

show abstract

Automatic semantic similarity priming.

Cited by 283 publications

References 61 publications

Integrative priming occurs rapidly and uncontrollably during lexical processing.

Integrative priming occurs rapidly and uncontrollably during lexical processing.

Retrieval from memory: Vulnerable or inviolable?

Activation and maintenance of peripheral semantic features of unambiguous words after right hemisphere brain damage in adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About