Conscious and unconscious detection of semantic anomalies

REFERENCES

• Barton, S. B., & Sanford, A. J. (1993). A case-study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & Cognition, 21, 477–487. doi: 10.3758/BF03197179
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bohan, J., Leuthold, H., Hijikaata, Y., & Sanford, A. J. (2012). The processing of good-fit semantic anomalies: An ERP investigation. Neuropsychologia, 50, 3174–3184. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.09.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bohan, J., & Sanford, A. (2008). Semantic anomalies at the borderline of consciousness: An eye-tracking investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 232–239. doi: 10.1080/17470210701617219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braze, D., Shankweiler, D., Ni, W., & Palumbo, L. C. (2002). Readers’ eye movements distinguish anomalies of form and content. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 25–44. doi: 10.1023/A:1014324220455
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bredart, S., & Docquier, M. (1989). The Moses illusion: A follow-up on the focalization effect. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 357–362.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bredart, S., & Modolo, K. (1988). Moses strikes again: Focalization effect on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychologia, 67, 135–144. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(88)90009-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büttner, A. C. (2007). Questions versus statements: Challenging an assumption about semantic illusions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 779–789. doi: 10.1080/17470210701228744
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Daneman, M., Hannon, B., & Burton, C. (2006). Are there age-related differences in shallow semantic processing of text?: Evidence from eye movements. Discourse Processes, 42, 177–203. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp4202_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daneman, M., Lennertz, T., & Hannon, B. (2007). Shallow semantic processing and cognitive processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 83–105. doi: 10.1080/01690960500372725
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daneman, M., Reingold, E. M., & Davidson, M. (1995). Time-course of phonological activation during reading: Evidence from eye fixations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 884–898. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.884
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Educational Testing Services. (1992). Practicing to take the GRE general test-No 9. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.
   Google Scholar
• Erickson, T. D., & Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 20, 540–551. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90165-1
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., Ferraro, V., & Bailey, K. G. D. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00158
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannon. (2012). Differential-associative processing or elaboration: Which strategy is best for learning the definitions of similar and unrelated pairs of concepts?. Learning and Instruction, 22, 299–310. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.005
   Google Scholar
• Hannon, B. (2013). The Influences of Pre-testing Reviews and Delays on Differential-associative Processing versus A Condition in which Students chose their Learning Strategy. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 1, 286–297. doi: 10.11114/jets.v1i2.225
   Google Scholar
• Hannon, B. (2014). Research on Semantic Illusions Tells us that there are Multiple Sources of Misinformation. In D. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds). Processing Inaccurate Information: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives from Cognitive Science and Educational Sciences (pp. 93–116). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2001). Susceptibility to semantic illusions: An individual-differences perspective. Memory and Cognition, 29, 449–461. doi: 10.3758/BF03196396
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2004). Shallow semantic processing of text: An individual-differences account. Discourse Processes, 37, 187–204. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp3703_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2007). Prospective memory: The relative effects of encoding, retrieval and the match between encoding and retrieval. Memory, 15, 572–604. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658210701407281
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannon, B., Lozano, G., Frias, S., Picallo-Hernandez, S., & Fuhrman, R. (2010). Differential- associative processing: A new strategy for learning highly-similar concepts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1222–1244. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1625
   Google Scholar
• Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329–354. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228–238. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.111.2.228
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mc Cune, S. L., Wright, N. J., & Elder, J. (1999). How to prepare for the Texas Academic Skills Program-3rd Edition. Hauppauge, NY: Barron.
   Google Scholar
• McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440–466. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.440
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reder, L., & Kusbit, G. W. (1991). Locus of the Moses illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match?. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 385–406. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90013-A
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, A., & Katzman, J. (2002). Cracking the SAT. New York, NY: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., Leuthold, H., Bohan, J., & Sanford, A. J. S. (2011). Anomalies at the borderline of awareness: an ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(3), 514–523. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21370
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 382–386. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01958-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shafto, M., & MacKay, D. L. (2000). The Moses, mega-Moses, and Armstrong illusions: Integrating language comprehension and semantic memory. Psychological Science, 11, 372–378. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00273
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Oostendorp, H., & de Mul, S. (1990). Moses beats Adam: A semantic relatedness effect on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychologia, 74, 35–46. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(90)90033-C
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Oostendorp, H. & Kok, I. (1990). Failing to notice errors in sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, 105–113. doi: 10.1080/01690969008402100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, L., Hagoort, P., & Yang, Y. (2009). Semantic illusion depends on information structure: ERP evidence. Brain Research, 1282, 50–56. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.05.069
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar