Dataset Information

Must analysis of meaning follow analysis of form? A time course analysis.

ABSTRACT: Many models of word recognition assume that processing proceeds sequentially from analysis of form to analysis of meaning. In the context of morphological processing, this implies that morphemes are processed as units of form prior to any influence of their meanings. Some interpret the apparent absence of differences in recognition latencies to targets (SNEAK) in form and semantically similar (sneaky-SNEAK) and in form similar and semantically dissimilar (sneaker-SNEAK) prime contexts at a stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) of 48 ms as consistent with this claim. To determine the time course over which degree of semantic similarity between morphologically structured primes and their targets influences recognition in the forward masked priming variant of the lexical decision paradigm, we compared facilitation for the same targets after semantically similar and dissimilar primes across a range of SOAs (34-100 ms). The effect of shared semantics on recognition latency increased linearly with SOA when long SOAs were intermixed (Experiments 1A and 1B) and latencies were significantly faster after semantically similar than dissimilar primes at homogeneous SOAs of 48 ms (Experiment 2) and 34 ms (Experiment 3). Results limit the scope of form-then-semantics models of recognition and demonstrate that semantics influences even the very early stages of recognition. Finally, once general performance across trials has been accounted for, we fail to provide evidence for individual differences in morphological processing that can be linked to measures of reading proficiency.

SUBMITTER: Feldman LB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4366802 | biostudies-other | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Must analysis of meaning follow analysis of form? A time course analysis.

Feldman Laurie B LB Milin Petar P Cho Kit W KW Moscoso Del Prado Martín Fermín F O'Connor Patrick A PA

Frontiers in human neuroscience 20150311

Many models of word recognition assume that processing proceeds sequentially from analysis of form to analysis of meaning. In the context of morphological processing, this implies that morphemes are processed as units of form prior to any influence of their meanings. Some interpret the apparent absence of differences in recognition latencies to targets (SNEAK) in form and semantically similar (sneaky-SNEAK) and in form similar and semantically dissimilar (sneaker-SNEAK) prime contexts at a stimu ...[more]

PMID: 25852512

Similar Datasets

Project description:In order to memorize sentences we use both processes of language comprehension during encoding and processes of language production during maintenance. While the former processes are easily testable via controlled presentation of the input, the latter are more difficult to assess directly as language production is typically initiated and controlled internally. In the present event-related potential (ERP) study we track subvocal rehearsal of sentences, with the goal of studying the concomitant planning processes with the help of a silent cued-production task. Native German participants read different types of sentences word-by-word, then were prompted by a visual cue to silently repeat each individual word, in a rehearsal phase. In order to assess both local and global effects of sentence planning, we presented correct sentences, syntactically or semantically violated sentences, or random word order sequences. Semantic violations during reading elicited an N400 effect at the noun violating the selectional restrictions of the preceding verb. Syntactic violations, induced by a gender incongruency between determiner and noun, led to a P600 effect at the same position. Different ERP patterns occurred during the silent production phase. Here, semantically violated sentences elicited an early fronto-central negativity at the verb, while syntactically violated sentences elicited a late right-frontal positivity at the determiner. Random word order was accompanied by long-lasting slow waves during the production phase. The findings are consistent with models of hierarchical sentence planning and further indicate that the ongoing working memory processes are qualitatively distinct from comprehension mechanisms and neurophysiologically specific for syntactic and lexical-semantic level planning. In conclusion, active working memory maintenance of sentences is likely to comprise specific stages of sentence production that are indicated by ERP correlates of syntactic and semantic planning at the phrasal and clausal level respectively.

Project description:The present paper explores nonnative (L2) phonological encoding of lexical entries and dissociates the difficulties associated with L2 phonological and phonolexical encoding by focusing on similarly sounding L2 words that are not differentiated by difficult phonological contrasts. We test two main claims of the fuzzy lexicon hypothesis: (1) L2 fuzzy phonolexical representations are not fully specified and lack details at both phonological and phonolexical levels of representation (Experiment 1); and (2) fuzzy phonolexical representations can lead to establishing incorrect form-to-meaning mappings (Experiment 2). The Russian-English Translation Judgment Task (Experiment 1, TJT) explores how the degree of phonolexical similarity between a word and its lexical competitor affects lexical access of Russian words. Words with smaller phonolexical distance (e.g., parent-parrot) show longer reaction times and lower accuracy compared to words with a larger phonolexical distance (e.g., parent-parchment) in lower-proficiency nonnative speakers, and, to a lesser degree, higher-proficiency speakers. This points to a lack of detail in nonnative phonolexical representations necessary for efficient lexical access. The Russian Pseudo-Semantic Priming task (Experiment 2, PSP) addresses the vulnerability of form-to-meaning mappings as a consequence of fuzzy phonolexical representations in L2. We primed the target with a word semantically related to its phonological competitor, or a potentially confusable word. The findings of Experiment 2 extend the results of Experiment 1 that, unlike native speakers, nonnative speakers do not properly encode phonolexical information. As a result, they are prone to access an incorrect lexical representation of a competitor word, as indicated by a slowdown in the judgments to confusable words. The study provides evidence that fuzzy phonolexical representations result in unfaithful form-to-meaning mappings, which lead to retrieval of incorrect semantic content. The results of the study are in line with existing research in support of less detailed L2 phonolexical representations, and extend the findings to show that the fuzziness of phonolexical representations can arise even when confusable words are not differentiated by difficult phonological contrasts.

Dataset Information

Must analysis of meaning follow analysis of form? A time course analysis.

Publications

Must analysis of meaning follow analysis of form? A time course analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets