NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Showing all 8 results Save | Export
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
Paivio, Allan – Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2013
Kousta, Vigliocco, Del Campo, Vinson, and Andrews (2011) questioned the adequacy of dual coding theory and the context availability model as explanations of representational and processing differences between concrete and abstract words. They proposed an alternative approach that focuses on the role of emotional content in the processing of…
Descriptors: Epistemology, Semantics, Language Processing, Psychological Patterns
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
van Deemter, Kees; Gatt, Albert; van der Sluis, Ielka; Power, Richard – Cognitive Science, 2012
This response discusses the experiment reported in Krahmer et al.'s Letter to the Editor of "Cognitive Science". We observe that their results do not tell us whether the Incremental Algorithm is better or worse than its competitors, and we speculate about implications for reference in complex domains, and for learning from "normal" (i.e.,…
Descriptors: Experiments, Natural Language Processing, Mathematics, Computational Linguistics
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
Roelofs, Ardi; Piai, Vitoria; Schriefers, Herbert – Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2011
E. Dhooge and R. J. Hartsuiker (2010) reported experiments showing that picture naming takes longer with low- than high-frequency distractor words, replicating M. Miozzo and A. Caramazza (2003). In addition, they showed that this distractor-frequency effect disappears when distractors are masked or preexposed. These findings were taken to refute…
Descriptors: Attention Control, Attention, Experiments, Semantics
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
Kliegl, Reinhold – Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2007
K. Rayner, A. Pollatsek, D. Drieghe, T. J. Slattery, and E. D. Reichle argued that the R. Kliegl, A. Nuthmann, and R. Engbert corpus-analytic evidence for distributed processing during reading should not be accepted because (a) there might be problems of multicollinearity, (b) the distinction between content and function words and the skipping…
Descriptors: Reading Research, Word Frequency, Language Processing, Correlation
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
Gathercole, Susan E. – Applied Psycholinguistics, 2006
Because words represent the building blocks upon which the facility to produce and comprehend language at all levels is based, the capacity of a child to learn words has immense impact on his or her developing abilities to communicate and engage properly with the outside world. Both the Keynote Article and the Commentaries in this issue…
Descriptors: Vocabulary Development, Repetition, Language Processing, Language Acquisition
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
Van Opstal, Filip; Reynvoet, Bert; Verguts, Tom – Cognition, 2005
In their original report [Kunde, W., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2003). Conscious control over the content of unconscious cognition. "Cognition," 88, 223-242] maintain that ''unconscious stimuli [do not] owe their impact [...] to automatic semantic categorization'' (p.223), and instead propose the action-trigger theory of unconscious priming. In a…
Descriptors: Semantics, Classification, Language Processing, Criticism
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
Kunde, Wilfried; Kiesel, Andrea; Hoffmann, Joachim – Cognition, 2005
We have recently argued that unconscious numerical stimuli might activate responses by a match with prespecified action trigger codes (action trigger account) rather than by semantic prime processing (elaborate processing account). [Van Opstal, F., Reynvoet, B., and Verguts, T. (2005). How to trigger elaborate processing? A comment on Kunde,…
Descriptors: Cognitive Processes, Experiments, Semantics, Language Processing
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
Clahsen, Harald; Felser, Claudia – Applied Psycholinguistics, 2006
The core idea that we argued for in the target article was that grammatical processing in a second language (L2) is fundamentally different from grammatical processing in one's native (first) language (L1). Our major source of evidence for this claim comes from experimental psycholinguistic studies investigating morphological and syntactic…
Descriptors: Evidence, Language Dominance, Cues, Semantics