Semantic Richness Effects in Syntactic Classification: The Role of Feedback.
Words with richer semantic representations are recognized faster across a range of lexical processing tasks. The most influential account of this finding is based on the idea that semantic richness effects are mediated by feedback from semantic-level to lower-level representations. In an earlier lexical decision study, Yap et al. (2015) tested this claim by examining the joint effects of stimulus quality and four semantic richness dimensions (imageability, number of features, semantic neighborhood density, semantic diversity). The results of that study showed that joint effects of stimulus quality and richness were generally additive, consistent with the idea that semantic feedback does not typically reach the earliest levels of representation in lexical decision. The present study extends this earlier work by investigating the joint effects of stimulus quality and the same four semantic richness dimensions on syntactic classification performance (is this a noun or verb?), which places relatively more emphasis on semantic processing. Additive effects of stimulus quality and richness were found for two of the four targeted dimensions (concreteness, number of features) while semantic neighborhood density and semantic diversity did not seem to influence syntactic classification response times. These findings provide further support against the view that semantic information reaches early letter-level processes.
Department of Psychology, National University of Singapore Singapore, Singapore.
Melvin J
MJ
Yap
Department of Psychology, University of Calgary Calgary, AB, Canada.
Penny M
PM
Pexman
RT distributional analyses; semantic feedback; semantic richness; stimulus quality; syntactic classification; visual word recognition
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 Jul;28(4):686-713
12109762
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001 Jan;27(1):139-56
11204094
Psychol Rev. 1982 Jan;89(1):60-94
7058229
Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004 Nov;36(4):742-56
15641420
Mem Cognit. 2015 Nov;43(8):1148-67
26155967
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Nov 05;7:723
24204336
Can J Exp Psychol. 2004 Mar;58(1):13-31
15072206
Behav Res Methods. 2007 Aug;39(3):445-59
17958156
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Mar;33(2):274-96
17352611
Cogn Psychol. 2010 Sep;61(2):106-51
20510406
Behav Res Methods. 2013 Mar;45(1):160-8
22936106
Psychol Rev. 2007 Apr;114(2):273-315
17500628
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2011 Dec;64(12):2368-82
21819278
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2015 Apr;41(2):385-402
25751041
Behav Res Methods. 2005 Nov;37(4):547-59
16629288
Psychon Bull Rev. 2003 Jun;10(2):398-404
12921416
Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Feb;15(1):161-7
18605497
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2014 Jun;149:32-9
24657828
Behav Res Methods. 2010 May;42(2):393-413
20479171
Behav Res Methods. 2009 Nov;41(4):977-90
19897807
Mem Cognit. 2000 Jun;28(4):657-66
10946548
Behav Res Methods. 2009 May;41(2):558-64
19363198
Psychol Rev. 1996 Jul;103(3):518-65
8759046
Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Apr 17;6:72
22529787
Psychol Rev. 2001 Jan;108(1):204-56
11212628
Psychon Bull Rev. 2014 Apr;21(2):526-33
24085511
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2008 May;34(3):495-513
18444751
Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Sep;9(3):542-9
12412895
Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 Aug;18(4):742-50
21494916
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2008 Nov;34(6):1400-11
18980404
Mem Cognit. 2001 Jan;29(1):53-61
11277464
Behav Res Methods. 2013 Sep;45(3):718-30
23239067
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014 Apr;143(2):527-33
24099578
Behav Res Methods. 2014 Sep;46(3):904-11
24142837
Q J Exp Psychol A. 2005 Aug;58(6):981-98
16194944
Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Mar 15;6:53
22435058
Behav Res Methods. 2007 Nov;39(4):973-8
18183914
Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004 Aug;36(3):384-7
15641427
Cognition. 2008 Jan;106(1):433-43
17258186
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1984 Jun;10(3):340-57
6242411
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 Nov;30(6):1252-70
15521802
Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004 Aug;36(3):402-7
15641430
Behav Res Methods. 2017 Apr;49(2):407-417
26944579