Cogprints

A distributional model of semantic context effects in lexical processinga

McDonald, Scott and Brew, Chris (2002) A distributional model of semantic context effects in lexical processinga. [Preprint]

Full text available as:

[img]
Preview
PDF
151Kb

Abstract

One of the most robust findings of experimental psycholinguistics is that the context in which a word is presented influences the effort involved in processing that word. We present a novel model of contextual facilitation based on word co-occurrence prob ability distributions, and empirically validate the model through simulation of three representative types of context manipulation: single word priming, multiple-priming and contextual constraint. In our simulations the effects of semantic context are mod eled using general-purpose techniques and representations from multivariate statistics, augmented with simple assumptions reflecting the inherently incremental nature of speech understanding. The contribution of our study is to show that special-purpose m echanisms are not necessary in order to capture the general pattern of the experimental results, and that a range of semantic context effects can be subsumed under the same principled account.›o

Item Type:Preprint
Keywords:lexical processing, semantic priming, word meaning, distributional information, Bayes' Law
Subjects:Psychology > Psycholinguistics
ID Code:3119
Deposited By:McDonald, Scott
Deposited On:27 Aug 2003
Last Modified:11 Mar 2011 08:55

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

Altarriba, J., Kroll, J., Sholl, A. & Rayner, K. (1996). The influence of lexical and conceptual constraints on reading mixed-language sentences: Evidence from eye fixations and naming times. Memory & Cognition, 24, 477-492.

Altmann, G. T. M. & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247-264.

Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive char acter of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Balota, D. A., Pollatsek, A. & Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 364-390.

Becker, C. A. (1980). Semantic context e ffects in visual word recognition: an analysis of semantic strategies. Memory & Cognition, 8, 493-512.

Brent, M. R. & Cartwright, T. A. (1996). Distributional regularity and phonotactics are useful for early lexical acquisition. Cognition, 61, 93-125.

Bro deur, D. A. & Lupker, S. J. (1994). Investigating the effects of multiple primes. Psychological Research, 57, 1-14.

Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P. & Chwilla, D. J. (2000). An event-related brain potential analysis of visual word priming effects. Brain and Language, 72, 158-190.

Chater, N. & Oaksford, M. (1999). Ten years of the rational analysis of cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 57-65.

Collins, E. M. & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Revie w, 82, 407-428.

Cree, G. S., McRae, K. & McNorgan, C. (1999). An attractor model of lexical conceptual processing: Simulating semantic priming. Cognitive Science, 23, 371-414.

Dosher, B. A. & Rosedale, G. (1989). Integrated retrieval cues as a mechanism f or priming in retrieval from memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2, 191-211.

Duffy, S. A., Henderson, J. M. & Morris, R. K. (1989). The semantic facilitation of lexical access during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 791-801.

Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S. & Rubin, D. B. (1995). Bayesian data analysis. London: Chapman & Hall.

Hodgson, J. M. (1991). Informational constraints on pre-lexical priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 169-205.

Hutchison, K. A., Neely, J. H. & Johnson, J. D. (2001). With great expectations, can two “wrongs” prime a “right”? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1451-1463.

Keefe, D. E. & Neely, J. H. (1990). Semantic priming in the pronunciation task: The role of prospective prime-generated expectancies. Memory & Cognition, 18, 289-298.

Klein, R., Briand, K., Smith, L. & Smith-Lamothe, J. (1988). Does spreading activation summate? Psychological Research, 5 0, 50-54.

Landauer, T. K. & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: the Latent Semantic Analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.

Lund, K. & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing h igh-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 203-208.

Lund, K., Burgess, C. & Atchley, R. (1995). Semantic and associative priming in high-dimensional semantic space. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 660-665). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lupker, S. (1984). Semantic priming without association: a second look. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 709-733.

Marslen-Wilson, W. D. & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8, 1-71.

Masson, M. E. J. (1986) Comprehension of rapidly presented sentences – the mind is quicker than the eye. Journal of Memory & Language, 25, 588-604.

McDonald, S. A. (2000). Environmental determinants of lexical processing effort. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.

McDonald, S. & Lowe, W. (1998). Modelling functional priming and the associative boost. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Confe rence of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 667-680). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McDonald, S. & Shillcock, R. (2001a). Contextual Distinctiveness: a new lexical property computed from large corpora. Informatics Research Report EDI-INF-RR-0042, University of Edi nburgh.

McDonald, S. A. & Shillcock, R. C. (2001b). Rethinking the word frequency effect: the neglected role of distributional information in lexical processing. Language and Speech, 44, 295-323.

McKoon, G. & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Spreading activation vers us compound cue accounts of priming: Mediated priming revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1155-1172.

McRae, K., de Sa, V. R. & Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations o f word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 99-130.

Meyer, D. & Schvaneveldt, R. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227-23 4.

Morris, R. K. (1994). Lexical and message-level sentence context effects on fixation times in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 92-103.

Moss, H. E., Ostrin, R. K., Tyler, L. K. & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (19 95). Accessing different types of lexical semantic information: Evidence from priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 863-883.

Muckel, S., Scheepers, C., Crocker, M. & Müller, K. (2002). Anticipating German par tic le verb meanings: Effects of lexical frequency and plausibility. Paper presented at the Eighth Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP-2002). Tenerife, Spain.

Nebes, R. D., Boller, F. & Holland, A. (1986). Use of semantic context by patients with Alzheimer’s Disease. Psychology and Aging, 1, 261-269.

Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: a selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphrey (Eds.) Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264-336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Neely, J. H., VerWys, C. A. & Kahan, T. A. (1998). Reading “glasses” will prime “vision,” but reading a pair of “glasses” will not. Memory & Cognition, 26, 34-39.

Oaksfor d, M. & Chater, N. (1998). An introduction to rational models of cognition. In M. Oaksford & N. Chater (Eds.) Rational Models of Cognition (pp. 1-18). Oxford: OUP.

Pitzer, K. D. & Dagenbach, D. (2001). A constraint on eliminating semantic priming by repea ti ng a prime. American Journal of Psychology, 114, 43-53.

Plaut, D. C. (1995). Semantic and associative priming in a distributed attracter network. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 37-42). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl baum.

Plaut, D. C. & Booth, J. R. (2000). Individual and developmental differences in semantic priming: Empirical and computational support for a single mechanism account of lexical processing, Psychological Review, 107, 786-823

Plaut, D. C. & Shallice, T. (1994). Connectionist modelling in cognitive neuropsychology: a case study. Hove, England: Erlbaum.

Ratcliff, R. & McKoon, G. (1988). A retrieval theory of priming in memory. Psychological Review, 95, 385-408.

Rayner, K. & Well, A. D. (1996). Effects of co ntextual constraint on eye movements in reading: a further examination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 504-509.

Redington, M., Chater, N. & Finch, S. (1998). Distributional information: a powerful cue for acquiring syntactic categories. Cognitive S cie nce, 22, 425-469.

Saffran, J. R. Aslin, R. N. & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month old infants. Science, 274, 1926-1928

Schustack, M. W., Ehrlich, S. F. & Rayner, K. (1987). Local and global sources of contextual facilitation in re ading. Journal of Memory & Language, 26, 322-340.

Schwanenflugel, P. J. & LaCount, K. L. (1988). Semantic relatedness and the scope of facilitation for upcoming words in sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 3 44-354.

Schwanenflugel, P. J. & Shoben, E. J. (1985). The influence of sentence constraint on the scope of facilitation for upcoming words. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 232-252.

Sedivy, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., Chambers, C. G. & Carlson, G. N. (199 9). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition, 71, 109-147.

Sharkey, N. E., & Mitchell, D. C. (1985). Word recognition in a functional context. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 253-270.

Smith, E. E. & Me din, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tanenhaus, M. K. & Lucas, M. M. (1987). Context effects in lexical processing. Cognition, 25, 213-234.

Taylor, W. L. (1953). “Cloze Procedure”: a new tool for measuring r ead ability. Journalism Quarterly, 30, 415-433.

Van Berkum, J. J. A., Hagoort, P. & Brown, C. M. (1999). Semantic integration in sentence and discourse: Evidence from the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 657-671.

Van Petten, C., Coulson, S., R ubin, S., Plante, E. & Parks, M. (1999). Time course of word identification and semantic integration in spoken language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 394-417.

Williams, J. N. (1996). Is automatic priming semantic? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 8, 113-161.

Wittengenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell..

Metadata

Repository Staff Only: item control page