Lexical co-occurrence and ambiguity resolution

References

• Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binder, K. S., & Morris, R. K. (1995). Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: Effects of prior encounter and discourse topic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1186–1196. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.5.1186
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binder, K. S., & Rayner, K. (1988). Contextual strength does not modulate the subordinate bias effect: Evidence from eye fixations and self-paced reading. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5, 271–276. doi:10.3758/BF03212950
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgess, C., & Lund, K. (1997). Modeling parsing constraints with high-dimensional context space. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 177–210. doi:10.1080/016909697386844
   Google Scholar
• Camblin, C. C., Gordon, P. C., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). The interplay of discourse congruence and lexical association during sentence processing: Evidence from ERPs and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 103–128. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson's method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45.
   Google Scholar
• Deacon, D., Grose-Fifer, J., Hewitt, S., Nagata, M., Shelley-Tremblay, J., & Yang, C.- M. (2004). Physiological evidence that a masked unrelated intervening item disrupts semantic priming: Implications for theories of semantic representation and retrieval models of semantic priming. Brain and Language, 89, 38–46. doi:10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00285-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dopkins, S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Lexical ambiguity and eye fixations in reading: A test of competing models. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 461–476. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(92)90023-Q
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duffy, S. A., Kambe, G., & Rayner, K. (2001). The effect of prior disambiguating context on the comprehension of ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. In D. Gorfein (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity. (pp. 27–43). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429–446. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(88)90066-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foltz, P. W., Kintsch, W., & Landauer, T. K. (1998). The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 285–307. doi:10.1080/01638539809545029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forster, K. I. (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. W. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic essays presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 27–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Forster, K. I. (2006). Early activation of category information in visual word recognition: More on the turple effect. The Mental Lexicon, 1, 35–58. doi:10.1075/ml.1.1.05for
   Google Scholar
• Forster, K. I. (2010). Using a maze task to track lexical and sentence processing. The Mental Lexicon, 5, 347–357. doi:10.1075/ml.5.3.05for
   Google Scholar
• Forster, K. I., & Bednall, E. S. (1976). Terminating and exhaustive search in lexical access. Memory and Cognition, 4, 53–61. doi:10.3758/BF03213255
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35, 116–124. doi:10.3758/BF03195503
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Forster, K. I., Guerrera, C., & Elliot, L. (2009). The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behavioral Research Methods, 41, 163–171. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.1.163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forster, K. I., & Hector, J. (2002). Cascaded versus noncascaded models of lexical and semantic processing: The turple effect. Memory and Cognition, 30, 1106–1116. doi:10.3758/BF03194328
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 181–200. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(90)90071-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorfein, D. S. (1989). Resolving semantic ambiguity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Gorfein, D. S. (2001). On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Hirst, G. (1988). Resolving lexical ambiguity computationally with spreading activation and polaroid words. In S. I. Small, G. W. Cottrell & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspectives from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology, and artificial intelligence (pp. 73–108). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Hogaboam, T. W., & Perfetti, C. A. (1975). Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 265–274. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80070-3
   Google Scholar
• Joordens, S., & Besnar, D. (1992). Priming effects that span an intervening unrelated word: Implications for models of memory representation and retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 483–491. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.18.3.483
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joseph, H. S. S. L., Liversedge, S. P., Blythe, H. I., White, S. J., Gathercole, S. E., & Rayner, K. (2008). Children's and adults' processing of anomaly and implausibility: Evidence from eye movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 708–723. doi:10.1080/17470210701400657
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (2000). Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 257–266. doi:10.3758/BF03212981
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 447–454. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 203–208. doi:10.3758/BF03204766
   Google Scholar
• Lund, K., Burgess, C., & Atchley, R. A. (1995). Semantic and associative priming in high dimensional semantic space. In the Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 660–665). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Masson, M. E. J. (1995). A distributed memory model of semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 3–23. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicol, J. L., Forster, K. I., & Veres, C. (1997). Subject-verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 569–587. doi:10.1006/jmla.1996.2497
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory and Cognition, 15, 225–236. doi:10.3758/BF03196957
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2005). Enemies and friends in the neighborhood: Orthographic similarity effects in semantic categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 121–128. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.1.121
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Prather, P. A., & Swinney, D. A. (1988). Lexical processing and ambiguity resolution: An autonomous process in an interactive box. In S. I. Small, G. W. Cottrell & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspectives from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology, and artificial intelligence (pp. 289–310). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory and Cognition, 14, 191–201. doi:10.3758/BF03197692
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 779–790. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.15.5.779
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Warren, T., Juhasz, B. J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2004). The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1290–1301. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1290
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reder, L. M. (1983). What kind of pitcher can a catcher fill? Effects of priming in sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 189–202. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90145-7
   Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team. (2009). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
   Google Scholar
• Rodd, J. M. (2004). When do leotards get their spots? Semantic activation of lexical neighbors in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 434–439. doi:10.3758/BF03196591
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohde, D. L. T., Gonnerman, L. M., & Plaut, D. C. (2005). An improved method for deriving word meaning from lexical co-occurrence. Retrieved from http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/RohdeGonnermanPlaut-COALS.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Seidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Bienkowski, M. (1982). Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 489–537. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(82)90017-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheridan, H., Reingold, E. M., & Daneman, M. (2009). Using puns to study contextual influences on lexical ambiguity resolution: Evidence from eye movements. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16, 875–881. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.5.875
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson, G. B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 120–136. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90356-X
   Google Scholar
• Simpson, G. B. (1984). Lexical ambiguity and its role in models of word recognition. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 316–340. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.96.2.316
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson, G. B. (1994). Context and the processing of ambiguous words. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 359–374). San Diego: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson, G. B., & Burgess, C. (1985). Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 28–39. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.11.1.28
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Small, S. I., Cottrell, G. W., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspectives from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology, and artificial intelligence. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Swets, B., Desmet, T., Clifton, C., & Ferreira, F. (2008). Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory and Cognition, 36, 201–216. doi:10.3758/MC.36.1.201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645–659. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90355-4
   Google Scholar
• Tabossi, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 324–340. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(88)90058-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabossi, P., Colombo, L., & Job, R. (1987). Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context and dominance. Psychological Research, 49, 161–167. doi:10.1007/BF00308682
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1979). Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 427–440. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90237-8
   Google Scholar
• Tanenhaus, M. K., & Lucas, M. M. (1987). Context effects in lexical processing. Cognition, 25, 213–234. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(87)90010-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Twilley, L. C., Dixon, P., Taylor, D., & Clark, K. (1994). University of Alberta norms of relative meaning frequency for 566 homographs. Memory and Cognition, 22, 111–126. doi:10.3758/BF03202766
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1987). Ambiguous words in context: An event-related potential analysis of the time course of meaning activation. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 188–208. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(87)90123-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witzel, N., Witzel, J., & Forster, K. I. (2012). Comparisons of online reading paradigms: Eye tracking, moving-window, and maze. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41, 105–128. doi:10.1007/s10936-011-9179-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wotschack, C., & Kliegl, R. ( in press). Reading strategy modulates parafoveal-on-foveal effects in sentence reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar