English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Effects of semantic diversity and word frequency on single word processing

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons265998

Chapman,  Curtiss
Lise Meitner Research Group Cognition and Plasticity, MPI for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Max Planck Society;

Martin,  Randi C.
Lise Meitner Research Group Cognition and Plasticity, MPI for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Chapman, C., & Martin, R. C. (2022). Effects of semantic diversity and word frequency on single word processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(5), 1035-1068. doi:10.1037/xge0001123.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0009-E20D-A
Abstract
Some research suggests that semantic diversity (SemD), a measure of the variability of contexts in which a word appears, plays an important role in language processing, determining the availability of word representations (e.g., Adelman et al., 2006) and causing task-specific benefits or detriments to performance (e.g., Hoffman & Woollams, 2015). Some researchers have claimed that word frequency has no effect once such diversity measures are taken into account (Adelman et al., 2006). Taking advantage of the power of five large-scale databases, we investigated the effects of SemD, word frequency, and their interaction in five tasks, including word reading, lexical and concreteness decision, object picture naming, and word repetition. We found: (a) word frequency and SemD effects were consistently distinct; (b) effects of SemD were facilitatory in nearly all tasks, but inhibitory effects were also found; contrary to existing claims, we conclude that inhibitory SemD effects do not necessarily imply semantic selection requirements; (c) the presence of SemD effects minimally influenced the size of frequency effects when SemD was left uncontrolled, suggesting that SemD does not explain absent frequency effects in the patient literature; and (d) word frequency and SemD only interact in the largest data sets. Results are discussed in the context of rational models of memory (Anderson & Milson, 1989; Anderson & Schooler, 1991) and the Controlled Semantic Cognition framework (Lambon Ralph et al., 2017).