Using cross-modal lexical decision tasks to investigate sentence processing.

Recent investigations of sentence processing have used the cross-modal lexical decision task to show that the antecedent of a phonologically empty noun phrase (specifically, WH-trace) is reactivated at the trace position. G. McKoon et al (see record 1995-04309-001) claimed that (1) a design feature concerning the choice of related and unrelated targets is a possible confound in this work and (2) the conclusions drawn from this previous research are therefore called into question. These claims are considered in light of both the McKoon et al experimental findings and the results of the J. L. Nicol et al experiments in which linguistic materials are tested. Nicol et al argue that their results may be due to the nature of their materials, and that a follow-up experiment reported by McKoon and R. Ratcliff (see record 1995-04308-001) used a technique that is not comparable to the cross-modal lexical decision task. It is concluded that current evidence supports the claim that structural information is used during on-line sentence processing and that the cross-modal technique is sensitive to this. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Sentential context effects on lexical decisions with a cross-modal instead of an all-visual procedure

J. L. Nicol and D. Swinney (1989) reported facilitation in a cross-modal lexical-decision task as evidence that implicit objects of verbs (WH-traces) are reinstated during comprehension. G. McKoon and R. Ratcliff (1994) found the same priming effects in the absence of implicit objects, suggesting that the effects are attributable to some factor other than a syntactic process that would fill in implicit objects. J. L. Nicol, J. D. Fodor, and D. Swinney (1994) questioned the relevance of McKoon and Ratcliff's findings because they were obtained with all-visual rather than cross-modal presentation. In 2 experiments, the authors replicated McKoon and Ratcliff's results using cross-modal lexical decision.     

Wrestling with ambiguity—further reflections: Reply to Masson and Borowsky (1995) and Rueckl (1995).

As noted by S. Joordens and D. Besner (see record 1995-07873-001), a number of distributed models of word recognition encounter difficulties when processing words that have multiple meanings because of competition that occurs when the multiple meanings attempt to instantiate their patterns of activation across a semantic level of representation. This contrasts with humans' lack of difficulty in naming and lexical decision when processing ambiguous words in the absence of a manipulated context. Joordens and Besner therefore concluded that the processing of ambiguous words represents an interesting challenge for distributed models of word recognition. A number of critical issues highlighted in the commentaries by M. E. J. Masson and R. Borowsky (see record 1995-31413-001) and by J. G. Rueckl (see record 1995-31416-001) are addressed in the present article. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Where are the effects of frequency in visual word recognition tasks? Right where we said they werep Comment on Monsell, Doyle, and Haggard (1989).

The authors' studies led them to conclude that category verification, lexical decision, and pronunciation tasks involve combinations of processes that cause them to produce differing estimates of the relation between word frequency and ease of lexical identification. S. Monsell et al (see record 1989-24836-001) challenged D. A. Balota and J. I. Chumbley's empirical evidence and conclusions, provided empirical evidence to support their challenge, and presented an alternative theoretical position. We show that Monsell et al.'s experiments, analyses, and theoretical perspective do not result in conclusions about the role of word frequency in category verification, lexical decision, and pronunciation that differ from those of Balota and Chumbley. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

How should implicit memory phenomena be modeled?

In a reply to R. Ratcliff and G. McKoon's (see record 1995-42754-001) article on bias in the object decision task, D. L. Schacter and L. A. Cooper (see record 1995-42835-001) critiqued their theoretical arguments and presented an updated view of priming in the object decision task. In the present article, the updated view is examined in detail, and it is questioned whether Schacter and Cooper's explanation of the data is sufficiently articulated to be falsifiable. It is also argued in the present article that evidence from other research domains is not directly supportive of the memory systems hypothesis and that the statistical power available in data from object decision experiments is not great enough to test some relevant hypotheses. Finally, the bias hypothesis (Ratcliff & McKoon) is elaborated to show that it requires a particular pattern of experimental results and that it serves as a target phenomenon for modeling. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Ambiguity and connectionist networks: Still settling into a solution: Comment on Joordens and Besner (1994).

Empirical results (e.g., see G. Kellas, F. R. Ferraro, & G. B. Simpson, 1988; M. L. Millis & S. B. Button, see record 1989-31854-001) suggest that readers perform lexical decisions faster for words with many meanings than for words with only one meaning. S. Joordens and D. Besner (see record 1995-07873-001) attempted to simulate this effect with a connectionist model but found that their network only produced an ambiguity advantage when its error rate was unacceptably high. In this commentary 3 issues relevant to an understanding of the implications of Joordens and Besner's findings are discussed: the reliability of the empirical data, the manner in which readers (and networks) make lexical decisions, and the effects of certain algorithmic and architectural factors on network performance. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Context and lexical access: Implications of nonword interference for lexical ambiguity resolution.

To eliminate potential "backward" priming effects, S. Glucksberg et al (see record 1986-29080-001) introduced a variant of the cross-modal lexical priming task in which subjects made lexical decisions to nonword targets that were modeled on a word related to either the contextually biased or unbiased sense of an ambiguous word. Lexical decisions to nonwords were longer than controls only when the nonword was related to the contextually biased sense of the ambiguous word, leading Glucksberg et al to conclude that context does constrain lexical access and that the multiple access pattern observed in previous studies was probably an artifact of backward priming. We did not find nonword interference when the nonword targets used by Glucksberg et al were preceded by semantically related ambiguous or unambiguous word primes. However, we did replicate their sentence context results when the ambiguous words were removed from the sentences. We conclude that the interference obtained by Glucksberg et al is due to postlexical judgments of the congruence of the sentence context and the target, not to context constraining lexical access. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

More words but still no lexicon: Reply to Besner et al. (1990).

The major points in the D. Besner et al (see record 1990-27434-001) critique of the M. S. Seidenberg and J. L. McClelland (see record 1990-03520-001) model are addressed. The model's performance differs from that of people in ways that are predictable from an understanding of the limitations of implementation. The principal limitations are the size of the training corpus and the phonological representation. The issue of pseudohomophone effects is discussed, and Besner et al's new data are shown to be consistent with the Seidenberg and McClelland account of lexical decision. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Not all negative words slow down lexical decision and naming speed: Importance of word arousal.

Previously the authors (see record 2006-04603-006) analyzed sets of words used in emotion Stroop experiments and found little evidence of automatic vigilance, for example, slower lexical decision time (LDT) or naming speed for negative words after controlling for lexical features. If there is a slowdown evoked by word negativity, most studies to date overestimate the effect because word negativity is often confounded with lexical features that promote slower word recognition. Estes and Adelman (this issue; see record 2008-09984-001) analyze a new set of words, controlling for important lexical features, and find a small but significant effect for word negativity. Moreover, they conclude the effect is categorical. The authors analyze the same data set but include the arousal value of each word. The authors find nonlinear and interaction effects in predicting LDT and naming speed. Not all negative words produce the generic slowdown. Paradoxically, negative words that are moderate to low on arousal produce more LDT slowing than negative words higher on arousal. This finding presents a theoretical and empirical challenge to researchers wishing to understand the boundaries of the automatic vigilance effect. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On the Value of Correcting Mischaracterizations of Stereotype Threat Research.

Replies to comments by C. M. Steele and J. Aronson (see record 2004-10043-009) on the mischaracterizations alleged by P. R. Sackett et al (see record 2004-10043-001) in the 1995 experiment by Steele and Aronson (see record 1996-12938-001) on the intellectual test performance of African Americans. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Automatic vigilance for negative words is categorical and general.

With other factors controlled, negative words elicit slower lexical decisions and naming than positive words (Estes & Adelman, 2008; see record 2008-09984-001). Moreover, this marked difference in responding to negative words and to positive words (i.e., between-category discontinuity) was accompanied by relatively uniform responding among negative words (i.e., within-category equivalence), thus suggesting a categorical model of automatic vigilance. Larsen, Mercer, Balota, and Strube (this issue; see record 2008-09984-002) corroborated our observation that valence predicts lexical decision and word naming latencies. However, on the basis of an interaction between linear arousal and linear valence, they claim that automatic vigilance does not occur among arousing stimuli and they purport to reject the categorical model. Here we show that (a) this interaction is logically irrelevant to whether automatic vigilance is categorical; (b) the linear interaction is statistically consistent with the categorical model; (c) the interaction is not observed within the categorical model; and (d) despite having 5 fewer parameters, the categorical model predicts word recognition times as well as the interaction model. Thus, automatic vigilance is categorical and generalizes across levels of arousal. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Separable effects of factors on speed and accuracy: Memory scanning, lexical decision, and choice tasks.

Contends that experimental factors selectively influencing serial mental processes will have additive effects on RT and log percent correct. Further, if such factors have additive effects on RT in one experiment, they will also have additive effects in an experiment with different error rates. The contention is illustrated in a memory-scanning task reported by B. L. Lively (see record 1973-06015-001), a choice task reported by S. P. Shwartz et al (see record 1978-11552-001), and a lexical decision task reported by R. E. Schuberth et al (see record 1982-00388-001). Findings show that factors had additive effects on RT, only if they had additive effects on log percent correct, except for the speed-payoff condition in Lively's experiment. It is suggested that in this condition, the process durations were not stochastically independent. Four appendices illustrate the calculations. (36 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Response bias and the process-dissociation procedure.

Two different approaches for treating response bias in the process-dissociation procedure were assessed: a multinomial approach proposed by A. Buchner et al (see record 1995-31816-001) and a dual-process, signal-detection approach proposed by A. P. Yonelinas et al (see record 1996-29360-001). The authors examined data presented by Buchner et al and found that, although the signal-detection-based model worked slightly better than the multinomial model, the data did not provide a strong test of either model. However, an examination of other recognition data showed that the multinomial model produced distorted estimates of recollection and familiarity, and it was unable to account for observed receiver operating characteristics (ROCs). In contrast, the dual-process, signal detection model produced unbiased estimates and was able to account for the observed ROCs. The authors also provide an overview of the general controversy surrounding the process-dissociation approach. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

From agency/empowerment to embodied empowerment.

Comments on the agency papers by B. D. Slife (see record 1995-13451-001), M. Gergen (see record 1995-14294-001), R. N. Williams (see record 1995-12851-001), and G. S. Howard (see record 1995-13446-001). In response to these papers, M. S. Richardson states that the construct of agency/empowerment is replaced with embodied empowerment, the idea of which needs to be developed in a moral concept. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Discrete threshold versus continuous strength models of perceptual recognition.

Tested discrete-threshold models of letter and word recognition against models that assume that decision criteria are applied to measures of continuous strength. Some of the predictions for discrete-threshold were generated from J. Grainger and A. M. Jacobs' (see record 1995-16120-001) dual-readout model (DROM) and some predictions for continuous strength were generated from a revised version of the activation-verification model (K. R. Paap et al; see record 1982-31874-001). Exp 1 used a 2-alternative forced-choice task, followed by an assessment of confidence and then a whole report if a word was recognized. Factors were manipulated to assess the presence or magnitude of a neighbourhood-frequency effect, a lexical-bias effect, a word-superiority effect, and a pseudoword advantage. Discrepancies between DROM's predictions and the obtained data are noted. Both types of models were also used to predict the distribution of responses across the levels of confidence for each. The predictions based on continuous strength were superior. Exp 2 used a same-different task and confidence ratings to enable the generation of receiver operating characteristics (ROCs). The shapes of the ROCs are more consistent with the continuous strength assumption than with a discrete threshold. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Mnemonics for variability: Remembering food delay.

Three experiments with White Carneaux pigeons (Columba livia) investigated memory and decision processes under fixed and variable reinforcement intervals. Response rate was measured during the unreinforced trials in the discrete-trial peak procedure in which reinforced trials were mixed with long unreinforced trials. Two decision models differing in assumptions about memory constraints are reviewed. In the complete-memory model (J. Gibbon et al, see record 1988-09671-001), all interreinforcement intervals were remembered, whereas in the minimax model (D. Brunner et al, see record 84-0343), only estimates of the shortest and longest possible reinforcement times were remembered. Both models accommodated some features of response rate as a function of trial time, but only the second was compatible with the observed cessation of responding. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Evolution Drive in Contemporary Psychoanalysis: A Reply to Gill (1995).

Replies to M. Gill's (see record 1995-33111-001) comment on the J. L. Bachant et al (see record 1995-33102-001) article concerning relational theories of psychoanalysis. Bachant et al explain how drives are viewed within contemporary classical theory and discuss 2 issues (dynamic unconscious and biopsychosocial forces) that distinguish classical and relational models. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Exterior letters are not privileged in the early stage of visual word recognition during reading: Comment on Jordan, Thomas, Patching and Scott-Brown (2003).

Potential sources for the discrepancy between the letter position effects in T. R. Jordan, S. M. Thomas, G. R. Patching, and K. C. Scott-Brown's (2003; see record 2003-07955-013) and D. Briihl and A. W. Inhoff s (1995; see record 1995-20036-001) studies are examined. The authors conclude that the lack of control over where useful information is acquired during reading in Jordan et al.'s study, rather than differences in the orthographic consistency and the availability of word shape information, account for the discrepant effect pattern in the 2 studies. The processing of a word during reading begins before it is fixated, when beginning letters occupy a particularly favorable parafoveal location that is independent of word length. Knowledge of parafoveal word length cannot be used to selectively process exterior letters during the initial phase of visual word recognition. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Priming and baseline perceptual identification performance in amnesia: A comment on Hamann, Squire, and Schacter.

There is evidence that stimulus processing deficits, some of which may be due to striatal damage, are prevalent in memory-impaired patients. The deficits often result in impaired baseline performance in implicit memory tasks, which in turn is associated with increased priming effects. When priming scores were corrected for such processing deficits, the authors found a relationship between priming and both recognition memory and mesial temporal lobe damage. On the basis of 4 tachistoscopic word identification experiments, S. B. Hamann et al (see record 1995-14158-001) challenged the notion that either processing deficits or striatal damage is prevalent in amnesia patients. They claim that both priming and baseline word identification are normal in amnesia patients, except that patients with Korsakoff amnesia show deficits under certain restricted circumstances. The authors argue that the results of the Hamann et al study are entirely consistent with their previous reports. When Hamann et al did not find differences between amnesia patients and controls in word identification, the results were contaminated by ceiling effects, and there was poor control over the effective exposure duration of the stimuli. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Why models rather than rules give a better account of propositional reasoning: A reply to Bonatti and to O'Brien, Braine, and Yang.

D. P. O'Brien et al (see record 1995-08272-001) argue that the mental model theory of propositional reasoning is easy to refute, and they report 3 experiments that they believe falsify the theory. In contrast, L. Bonatti (see record 1995-08253-001) argues that the model theory is too flexible to be falsified. It is shown that the experiments by O'Brien et al do not refute the model theory and that Bonatti's claims are ill founded. Formal rule theories of propositional reasoning have 3 major weaknesses in comparison with the model theory: (1) They have no decision procedure; (2) they lack predictive power, providing no account of several robust phenomena (e.g., erroneous conclusions tend to be consistent with the premises); and (3) as a class of theories, they are difficult to refute experimentally. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)