title: On the nature of semantic constraints on lexical access.
abstract: We present two eye-tracking experiments that investigate lexical frequency and semantic context constraints in spoken-word recognition in German. In both experiments, the pivotal words were pairs of nouns overlapping at onset but varying in lexical frequency. In Experiment 1, German listeners showed an expected frequency bias towards high-frequency competitors (e.g., Blume, 'flower') when instructed to click on low-frequency targets (e.g., Bluse, 'blouse'). In Experiment 2, semantically constraining context increased the availability of appropriate low-frequency target words prior to word onset, but did not influence the availability of semantically inappropriate high-frequency competitors at the same time. Immediately after target word onset, however, the activation of high-frequency competitors was reduced in semantically constraining sentences, but still exceeded that of unrelated distractor words significantly. The results suggest that (1) semantic context acts to downgrade activation of inappropriate competitors rather than to exclude them from competition, and (2) semantic context influences spoken-word recognition, over and above anticipation of upcoming referents.
authors.affiliation: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Wundtlaan 1, 6525 XD, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. andrea.weber@mpi.nl
authors.forename: Andrea
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Weber
authors.forename: Matthew W
authors.initials: MW
authors.lastname: Crocker
mesh_terms: D053483:Eye Movement Measurements; D005133:Eye Movements / Q000502:physiology*; D006801:Humans; D007802:Language; D010775:Photic Stimulation; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology; D021641:Recognition, Psychology / Q000502:physiology*; D012660:Semantics; D013067:Speech Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D014825:Vocabulary; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1993 Nov;19(6):1254-76
references.pmid: 8270887
references.citation: J Mem Lang. 2007 Nov;57(4):483-501
references.pmid: 18071581
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2002 Apr;28(2):270-8
references.pmid: 11999854
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2006 Sep;53(2):146-93
references.pmid: 16797524
references.citation: J Psycholinguist Res. 1995 Nov;24(6):409-36
references.pmid: 8531168
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Oct;109(1):18-40
references.pmid: 18760407
references.citation: Ear Hear. 1998 Feb;19(1):1-36
references.pmid: 9504270
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2001 Mar;29(2):363-72
references.pmid: 11352220
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1990 Nov;16(6):1084-96
references.pmid: 2148581
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2001 Jun;42(4):317-67
references.pmid: 11368527
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 1995;46:467-92
references.pmid: 7872735
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2000 Apr;62(3):615-25
references.pmid: 10909252
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1985 Jan;11(1):126-35
references.pmid: 3156948
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1993 Jan;19(1):81-94
references.pmid: 8423435
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 Mar;30(2):498-513
references.pmid: 14979820
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1993 Mar;21(2):210-22
references.pmid: 8469130
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1986 Jan;18(1):1-86
references.pmid: 3753912
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2003 Aug;19(4):1627-37
references.pmid: 12948717
references.citation: Cognition. 1999 Dec 17;73(3):247-64
references.pmid: 10585516
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1993 Apr;53(4):372-80
references.pmid: 8483701
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2008 Apr;115(2):357-95
references.pmid: 18426294
references.citation: Cognition. 1989 Jun;32(1):25-64
references.pmid: 2752705
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2002 Sep;45(2):220-66
references.pmid: 12528902