Abstract
The notion of feedback activation from semantics to both orthography and phonology has recently been used to explain a number of semantic effects in visual word recognition, including polysemy effects (Hino & Lupker, 1996; Pexman & Lupker, 1999) and synonym effects (Pecher, 2001). In the present research, we tested an account based on feedback activation by investigating a new semantic variable: number of features (NOF). Words with high NOF (e.g., LION) should activate richer semantic representations than do words with low NOF (e.g., LIME). As a result, the feedback activation from semantics to orthographic and phonological representations should be greater for high-NOF words, which should produce superior lexical decision task (LDT) and naming task performance. The predicted facilitory NOF effects were observed in both LDT and naming.
Article PDF
References
Balota, D. A., Ferraro, R. F., &Connor, L. T. (1991). On the early influence of meaning in word recognition: A review of the literature. In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.),The psychology of word meanings (pp. 187–221). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Besner, D., &Joordens, S. (1995). Wrestling with ambiguity—Further reflections: Reply to Masson and Borowsky (1995) and Rueckl (1995).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 515–519.
Besner, D., &Smith, M. C. (1992). Models of visual word recognition: When obscuring the stimulus yields a clearer view.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 468–482.
Borowsky, R., &Besner, D. (1993). Visual word recognition: A multistage activation model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 813–840.
Borowsky, R., &Masson, M. E. J. (1996). Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 63–85.
Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., &Provost, J. (1993). Psy-Scope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,25, 257–271.
Cortese, M. J., Simpson, G. B., &Woolsey, S. (1997). Effects of association and imageability on phonological mapping.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 226–231.
De Groot, A. M. (1989). Representational aspects of word imageability and word frequency as assessed through word association.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 824–845.
Gibbs, P., &Van Orden, G. C. (1998). Pathway selection's utility for control of word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 1162–1187.
Gottlob, L. R., Goldinger, S. D., Stone, G. O., &Van Orden, G. C. (1999). Reading homographs: Orthographic, phonologic, and semantic dynamics.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 561–574.
Hino, Y., &Lupker, S. J. (1996). Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: An alternative to lexical access accounts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,22, 1331–1356.
Hino, Y., Lupker, S. J., &Pexman, P. M. (2002). Ambiguity and synonymy effects in lexical decision, naming, and semantic categorization tasks: Interactions between orthography, phonology, and semantics.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,28, 686–713.
Hino, Y., Lupker, S. J., Sears, C. R., &Ogawa, T. (1998). The effects of polysemy for Japanese katakana words.Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,10, 395–424.
James, C. T. (1975). The role of semantic information in lexical decisions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,1, 130–136.
Jastrzembski, J. E. (1981). Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon.Cognitive Psychology,13, 278–305.
Jastrzembski, J. E., &Stanners, R. F. (1975). Multiple word meanings and lexical search speed.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,14, 534–537.
Jones, G. V. (1985). Deep dyslexia, imageability, and ease of predication.Brain & Language,24, 1–19.
Joordens, S., &Besner, D. (1994). When banking on meaning is not (yet) money in the bank: Explorations in connectionist modeling.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 1051–1062.
Kawamoto, A. H., Farrar, W. T., &Kello, C. T. (1994). When two meanings are better than one: Modeling the ambiguity advantage using a recurrent distributed network.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 1233–1247.
Keil, F. C. (1989).Concepts, kinds and cognitive development. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
Kellas, G., Ferraro, F. R., &Simpson, G. B. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and the timecourse of attentional allocation in word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,14, 601–609.
Kučera, H., &Francis, W. (1967).Computational analysis of presentday American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Lichacz, F. M., Herdman, C. M., LeFevre, J., &Baird, B. (1999). Polysemy effects in naming.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,53, 189–193.
McRae, K., & Cree, G. S. (in press). Factors underlying category specific semantic deficits. In E. M. E. Forde & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.),Category-specificity in brain and mind. East Sussex, U.K.: Psychology Press.
McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Westmacott, R., &de Sa, V. R. (1999). Further evidence for feature correlations in semantic memory.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,53, 360–373.
McRae, K., de Sa, V. R., &Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,126, 99–130.
Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure.American Psychologist,44, 1469–1481.
Millis, M. L., &Button, S. B. (1989). The effect of polysemy on lexical decision time: Now you see it, now you don't.Memory & Cognition,17, 141–147.
Pecher, D. (2001). Perception is a two-way junction: Feedback semantics in word recognition.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 545–551.
Pexman, P. M., &Lupker, S. J. (1999). Ambiguity and visual word recognition: Can feedback explain both homophone and polysemy effects?Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,53, 323–334.
Pexman, P. M., Lupker, S. J., &Jared, D. (2001). Homophone effects in lexical decision.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 139–156.
Piercey, C. D., &Joordens, S. (2000). Turning an advantage into a disadvantage: Ambiguity effects in lexical decision versus reading tasks.Memory & Cognition,28, 657–666.
Plaut, D. C., &Shallice, T. (1993). Deep dyslexia: A case study of connectionist neuropsychology.Cognitive Neuropsychology,10, 377–500.
Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.),Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 21–59). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rubenstein, H., Garfield, L., &Millikan, J. A. (1970). Homographic entries in the internal lexicon.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,9, 487–494.
Rubenstein, H., Lewis, S. S., &Rubenstein, M. A. (1971). Evidence for phonemic recoding in visual word recognition.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,10, 645–657.
Rueckl, J. G. (1995). Ambiguity and connectionist networks: Still settling into a solution—Comment on Joordens and Besner (1994).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 501–508.
Seidenberg, M. S., &McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming.Psychological Review,96, 523–568.
Stolz, J. A., &Neely, J. H. (1995). When target degradation does and does not enhance semantic context effects in word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 596–611.
Stone, G. O., Vanhoy, M., &Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Perception is a two-way street: Feedforward and feedback phonology in visual word recognition.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 337–359.
Stone, G. O., &Van Orden, G. C. (1993). Strategic control of processing in word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 744–774.
Strain, E., &Herdman, C. M. (1999). Imageability effects in word naming: An individual differences analysis.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,53, 347–359.
Strain, E., Patterson, K., &Seidenberg, M. S. (1995). Semantic effects in single-word naming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1140–1154.
Van Orden, G. C., &Goldinger, S. D. (1994). The interdependence of form and function in cognitive systems explains perception of printed words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 1269–1291.
Zevin, J. D., &Balota, D. A. (2000). Priming and attentional control of lexical and sublexical pathways during naming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 121–135.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported in part by grants to P.M.P. and S.J.L. from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pexman, P.M., Lupker, S.J. & Hino, Y. The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: Number-of-features effects in lexical decision and naming tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9, 542–549 (2002). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196311
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196311