Memory & Cognition

, Volume 28, Issue 8, pp 1366–1377 | Cite as

On the locus of the semantic satiation effect: Evidence from event-related brain potentials

Article

Abstract

The present study sought to determine whether semantic satiation is merely a by-product of adaptation or satiation of upstream, nonsemantic perceptual processes or whether the effect can have a locus in semantic memory. This was done by measuring event-related brain potentials (ERPs) in a semantic word-detection task involving multiple presentations of primes and critical related and unrelated words in three experiments involving visual (Experiment 1) and auditory (Experiments 2A and 2B) stimuli. Primes varied in their type case (Experiment 1) or pitch (Experiment 2B) in order to discourage sensory adaptation. Prime satiation and relatedness of the primes to the critical word had interacting effects on ERP amplitude to critical words, particularly within the time-window of the N400 component. Because numerous studies have indicated a role for the N400 in semantic processing, modulation of the N400 relatedness effect by prime satiation (with little or no contribution from perceptual adaptation) suggests that semantic memory can be directly satiated, rather than the cost to semantic processing necessarily resulting from impoverishment of perceptual inputs.

References

  1. Balota, D. A., &Black, S. (1997). Semantic satiation in healthy young and older adults.Memory & Cognition,25, 190–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Frenck-Mestre, C., Besson, M., &Pynte, J. (1997). Finding the locus of semantic satiation: An electrophysiological attempt.Brain & Language,57, 406–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Geisser, S., &Greenhouse, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data.Psychometrika,24, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Grey-Walter, W., Cooper, R., Aldridge, V. J., McCallum, W. C., &Winter, A. L. (1964). Contingent negative variation: An electric sign of sensorimotor association and expectancy in the human brain.Nature,203, 380–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hillyard, S. A., &Picton, T. W. (1987). Electrophysiology of cognition. In F. Plum (Ed.),Handbook of physiology: Sec. 1. Neurophysiology (pp. 519–584). New York: American Physiological Society.Google Scholar
  6. Holcomb, P. J., Kounios, J., Anderson, J. E., &West, W. C. (1999). Dual coding, context availability, and concreteness effects in sentence comprehension: An electrophysiological investigation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 721–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Holcomb, P. J., &Neville, H. (1990). Semantic priming in visual and auditory lexical decision: A between modality comparison.Language & Cognitive Processes,5, 281–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Holcomb, P. J., &Neville, H. J. (1991). The electrophysiology of spoken sentence processing.Psychobiology,19, 286–300.Google Scholar
  9. Kounios, J. (1996). On the continuity of thought and the representation of knowledge: Electrophysiological and behavioral time-course measures reveal levels of structure in semantic memory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,3, 265–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kounios, J., &Holcomb, P. J. (1994). Concreteness effects in semantic processing: ERP evidence supporting dual-coding theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 804–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kutas, M., &Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity.Science,207, 203–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kutas, M., &van Petten, C. (1994). Psycholinguistics electrified. In M. Gernsbacher (Ed.),Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 84–143). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Osterhout, L., &Holcomb, P. J. (1995). Event-related potentials and language comprehension. In M. Rugg & M. G. H. Coles (Eds.),Electrophysiology of mind (pp. 171–215). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Pilotti, M., Antrobus, J. S., &Duff, M. (1997). The effect of presemantic acoustic adaptation on semantic “satiation.”Memory & Cognition,25, 305–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rugg, M., &Coles, M. G. H. (1995).Electrophysiology of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Severance, E., &Washburn, M. F. (1907). The loss of associative power in words after long fixation.American Journal of Psychology,18, 182–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Smith, L. C. (1984). Semantic satiation affects category membership decision time but not lexical priming.Memory & Cognition,12, 483–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Smith, L. C., &Klein, R. (1990). Evidence for semantic satiation: Repeating a category slows subsequent semantic processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 852–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyTufts UniversityMedford
  2. 2.Max Planck Institute of Cognitive NeuroscienceLeipzigGermany
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyTufts UniversityMedford

Personalised recommendations