Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 1072–1077 | Cite as

NoA’s ark: Influence of the number of associates in visual word recognition

  • Jon Andoni DuñabeitiaEmail author
  • Alberto Avilés
  • Manuel Carreiras
Brief Reports


The main aim of this study was to explore the extent to which the number of associates of a word (NoA) influences lexical access, in four tasks that focus on different processes of visual word recognition: lexical decision, reading aloud, progressive demasking, and online sentence reading. Results consistently showed that words with a dense associative neighborhood (high-NoA words) were processed faster than words with a sparse neighborhood (low-NoA words), extending previous findings from English lexical decision and categorization experiments. These results are interpreted in terms of the higher degree of semantic richness of high-NoA words as compared with low-NoA words. 2008 Psychonomic Society, Inc. Author Note


Lexical Decision Lexical Decision Task Visual Word Recognition Critical Word Semantic Variable 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K.A., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R. (2002). The English Lexicon Project: A Web-based repository of descriptive and behavioral measures for 40,481 English words and nonwords. Retrieved January 8, 2008, from Scholar
  2. Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., Spieler, D. H., & Yap, M. J. (2004). Visual word recognition for single syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 283–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buchanan, L., Westbury, C., & Burgess, C. (2001). Characterizing semantic space: Neighborhood effects in word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 531–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carreiras, M., Perea, M., & Grainger, J., (1997). Effects of orthographic neighborhood in visual word recognition: Cross-task comparisons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 857–871.Google Scholar
  5. Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cortese, M. J., & Khanna, M. M. (2007). Age of acquisition predicts naming and lexical decision performance above and beyond 22 other predictor variables: An analysis of 2,340 words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1072–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dufau, S., Stevens, M., & Grainger, J. (2008). Windows executable software for the progressive demasking task. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 33–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fernández, A., Díez, E., Alonso, M. A., & Beato, M. S. (2004). Free-association norms for the Spanish names of the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 577–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Holcomb, P. J., Grainger, J., & O’Rourke, T. (2002). An electrophysiological study of the effects of orthographic neighborhood size on printed word perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 938–950.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hyönä, J., & Olson, R. K. (1995). Eye fixation patterns among dyslexic and normal readers: Effects of word length and word frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1430–1440.Google Scholar
  13. Inhoff, A. W., & Rayner, K. (1986). Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word frequency. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 431–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Locker, L., Simpson, G., & Yates, M. (2003). Semantic neighborhood effects on the recognition of ambiguous words. Memory & Cognition, 31, 505–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mirman, D., & Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Attractor dynamics and semantic neighborhood density: Processing is slowed by near neighbors and speeded by distant neighbors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 34, 65–79.Google Scholar
  16. Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Retrieved January 8, 2008, from FreeAssociation.Google Scholar
  17. Nelson, D. L., McKinney, V. M., Gee, N. R., & Janczura, G. A. (1998). Interpreting the influence of implicitly activated memories on recall and recognition. Psychological Review, 105, 299–324.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Nelson, D. L., McKinney, V. M., & McEvoy, C. L. (2003). Are implicitly activated associates selectively activated? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 118–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pexman, P. M., Hargreaves, I. S., Edwards, J. D., Henry, L. C., & Goodyear, B. G. (2007). The neural consequences of semantic richness. When more comes to mind, less activation is observed. Psychological Science, 18, 401–406.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Pexman, P. M., Hargreaves, I. S., Siakaluk, P. D., Bodner, G. E., & Pope, J. (2008). There are many ways to be rich: Effects of three measures of semantic richness on visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pexman, P. M., & Lupker, S. J. (1999). The impact of semantic ambiguity on visual word recognition: Do homophone and polysemy effects co-occur? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 323–334.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Plaut, D. C. (1997). Structure and function in the lexical system: Insights from distributed models of naming and lexical decision. Language & Cognitive Processes, 12, 767–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Plaut, D. C., & Booth, J. R. (2000). Individual and developmental differences in semantic priming: Empirical and computational support for a single-mechanism account of lexical processing. Psychological Review, 107, 786–823.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Plaut, D. C., & Shallice, T. (1993). Deep dyslexia: A case study of connectionist neuropsychology. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 10, 377–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Protopapas, A. (2007). CheckVocal: A program to facilitate checking the accuracy and response time of vocal responses from DMDX. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 859–862.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Reimer, J. F., Lorsbach, T. C., & Bleakney, D. M. (2008). Automatic semantic feedback during visual word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 36, 641–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Yates, M., Locker, L., & Simpson, G. (2003). Semantic and phonological influences on the processing of words and pseudohomophones. Memory & Cognition, 31, 856–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jon Andoni Duñabeitia
    • 2
    Email author
  • Alberto Avilés
    • 2
  • Manuel Carreiras
    • 2
    • 1
  1. 1.Basque Research Centre on Cognition, Brain and LanguageBCBLBilbaoSpain
  2. 2.Departamento de Psicología CognitivaUniversidad de La LagunaTenerifeSpain

Personalised recommendations