A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment
Although the establishment of a coherent mental representation depends on semantic analysis, such analysis is not necessarily complete. This is illustrated by failures to notice the anomaly in questions such as, “When an airplane crashes, where should the survivors be buried?” Four experiments were carried out to extend knowledge of what determines the incidental detection of the critical item. Detection is a function of the goodness of global fit of the item (Experiments 1 and 2) and the extent to which the scenario predicts the item (Experiment 3). Global good fit appears to result in shallow processing of details. In Experiment 4, it is shown that if satisfactory coherence can be established without detailed semantic analysis, through the recruitment of suitable information from a sentence, then processing is indeed shallow. The studies also show that a text is not understood by first producing a local semantic representation and then incorporating this into a global model, and that semantic processing is not strictly incremental.
- Anderson, J. R. (1983).The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Barton, S. B., & Sanford, A. J. (1993).Incomplete processing of coherence relations with auditory presentations of text. Manuscript submitted for publication.
- Bredart, S., &Modolo, K. (1988). Moses strikes again: Focalization effects on a semantic illusion.Acta Psychologica,67, 135–144. CrossRef
- Carpenter, P. A., &Just, M. A. (1983). What your eyes do when your mind is reading. In K. Rayner (Ed.),Eye movements in reading: Perceptual and language processes (pp. 275–307). New York: Academic Press.
- Ehrlich, M.-F., & Loridant, C. (1990, September).Metacognitive control in the the resolution of anaphora in skilled and less-skilled comprehenders. Paper presented at the conference of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology, Como, Italy.
- Erickson, T. A., &Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,20, 540–552. CrossRef
- Frazier, L., &Rayner, K. (1990) Taking on Semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses.Journal of Memory & Language,29, 181–200. CrossRef
- Just, M. A.,Carpenter, P. A., &Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension.Journal of Esperimental Prychology: General,111, 228–238.
- Kintsch, W.,&Vanduk, T. A. (1978). Towards a model of text comprehension and production.Psychological Review,85, 363–394. CrossRef
- Mcclelland, J. L., St. John, M., &Taraban, R. (1989). Sentence comprehension: A parallel distributed processing approach.Language & Cognitive Processes,4, 287. CrossRef
- McKoon, G., &Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading.Psychological Review,99, 440–466. CrossRef
- Mitchell, D. C., &Green, D. W. (1978). The effects of context and content of immediate processing in reading.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,30, 609–637. CrossRef
- Rayner, K., &Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 779–790. CrossRef
- Reder, L. M. (1982). Plausibilityjudgements vs. fact retrieval: Alternative strategies for sentence verification.Psychological Review,89, 250–280. CrossRef
- Reder, L. M. (1987). Strategy selection in question-answering.Cognitive Psychology,19, 90–138. CrossRef
- Reder, L. M., &Kusbit, G. W. (1991). Locus of the Moses illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match?Journal of Memory & Language,30, 385–406. CrossRef
- Sanford, A. J., Barton, S. B., Moxey, L. M., & Paterson, K. B. (in press). Cohesion processes, coherence, and anomaly detection. In G. Rickheit & C. Habel (Eds.),Focus and cohesion in language comprehension. Berlin: de Gruyter.
- Sanford, A. J., &Garrod, S. C. (1989). What, when and how?: Questions of immediacy in anaphot-tc reference resolution.Language & Cognitive Processes,4, 235–262. CrossRef
- Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (in press). Selective processing in text understanding. In M. Gernsbacher (Ed.),Handbook of psycholinguistics. New York: Academic Press.
- Schlesinger, I. M. (1968).Sentence structure and the readingprocess. The Hague: Mouton.
- Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., &Rips, L. V. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decision.Psychological Review,81, 214–241. CrossRef
- Van Oostendorp, H., &De Mul, S. (1990). Moses beats Adam: A semantic relatedness effect on a semantic illusion.Acta Psycholgica,74, 35–46. CrossRef
- Van Oostendorp, H., & Den Uyl, M. J. (1984, June).Semantic relatedness effects in textprocessing. Paper presented to the joint meeting of the Experimental Psychology Society and the Netherlands Psychonomic Foundation, University of Amsterdam.
- Van Oostendorp, H., &Kok, I. (1990). Failing to notice errors in sentences.Language & Cognitive Processes,5, 105–113. CrossRef
- Wason, P., &Reich, S. S. (1979). A verbal illusion.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,31, 591–597. CrossRef
- Winer, B. J. (1971).Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment
Memory & Cognition
Volume 21, Issue 4 , pp 477-487
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors