Abstract
The density of the orthographic neighborhood surrounding an item has been shown to have an inhibitory effect for nonwords in a lexical decision experiment. Four experiments are reported investigating whether a similar pattern holds for a semantic categorization task (animal vs. non-animal). In the first experiment, no effects of neighborhood density were found for nonexemplars, whether they were words or nonwords. The absence of any inhibitory effect for nonwords implies that close orthographic neighbors are ignored. However, the second experiment showed that if the nonword has a neighbor that is an animal name (e.g.,turple), an interference effect is observed, implying that neighbors do exert an effect if they have the right semantic properties. The same items showed no additional interference in lexical decision. These results suggest the involvement of semantic properties very early in the processing cycle. A cascaded processing system monitoring activation in semantic features can explain these results, but cannot explain the frequency effect observed for nonexemplar words or the fact that variation in density is irrelevant when one of the neighbors is an exemplar. It is argued that existing models of semantic categorization must be extended to accommodate these results.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andrews, S. (1989). Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Activation or search?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 802–814.
Andrews, S. (1992). Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Lexical similarity or orthographic redundancy?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 234–254.
Andrews, S. (1997). The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: Resolving neighborhood conflicts.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 439–461.
Battig, W. F., &Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs,80 (3, Pt. 2), 1–46.
Bourassa, D. C., &Besner, D. (1998). When do nonwords activate semantics? Implications for models of visual word recognition.Memory & Cognition,26, 61–74.
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.
Chambers, S. M. (1976).The use of visual stimulus information in word recognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Monash University, Melbourne.
Collins, A. M., &Quillian, M. R. (1972). How to make a language user. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.),Organization of memory (pp. 309–351). New York: Academic Press.
Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J., &Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.),Attention and performance IV (pp. 535–555). New York: Academic Press.
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., &Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud.Psychological Review,108, 204–256.
Forster, K. I. (1999). The microgenesis of priming effects in lexical access.Brain & Language,68, 5–15.
Forster, K. I., &Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,10, 680–698.
Forster, K. I., &Shen, D. (1996). No enemies in the neighborhood: Absence of inhibitory neighborhood effects in lexical decision and semantic categorization.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 696–713.
Forster, K. I., &Veres, C. (1998). The prime lexicality effect: Formpriming as a function of prime awareness, lexical status, and discrimination difficulty.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 498–514.
Grainger, J., &Jacobs, A. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model.Psychological Review,103, 518–565.
Grainger, J., O’Regan, J. K., Jacobs, A. M., &Segui, J. (1989). On the role of competing word units in visual word recognition: The neighborhood frequency effect.Perception & Psychophysics,3, 189–195.
Grainger, J., &Segui, J. (1990). Neighborhood frequency effects in visual word recognition: A comparison of lexical decision and masked identification latencies.Perception & Psychophysics,47, 191–198.
Johnson, N. F., &Pugh, K. R. (1994). A cohort model of visual word recognition.Cognitive Psychology,3, 240–346.
Kučera, H., &Francis, W. N. (1967).Computational analysis of presentday American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
MCRae, K., &Boisvert, S. (1998). Automatic semantic similarity priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 558–572.
Monsell, S., Doyle, C., &Haggard, P. (1989). Effects of frequency on visual word recognition tasks: Where are they?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 43–71.
Norris, D. (1986). Word recognition: Context effects without priming.Cognition,22, 93–136.
Paap, K., Newsome, S., McDonald, J., &Schvaneveldt, R. (1982). An activation-verification model for letter and word recognition: The word superiority effect.Psychological Review,89, 573–594.
Perea, M., &Pollatsek, A. (1998). The effects of neighborhood frequency in reading and lexical decision.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 767–779.
Plaut, D. C. (1997). Structure and function in the lexical system: Insights from distributed models of word reading and lexical decision.Language & Cognitive Processes,12, 765–805.
Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., &Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains.Psychological Review,103, 56–115.
Sears, C., Hino, Y., &Lupker, S. (1995). Neighborhood size and neighborhood frequency effects in word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 876–900.
Sears, C., Lupker, S. J., &Hino, Y. (1999). Orthographic neighborhood effects in perceptual identification and semantic categorization tasks: A test of the multiple read-out model.Perception & Psychophysics,61, 1537–1554.
Ziegler, J. C., &Perry, C. (1998). No more problems in Coltheart’s neighborhood: Resolving neighborhood conflicts in the lexical decision task.Cognition,68, B53-B62.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported in part by National Multipurpose Research and Training Grant 1P60 DC01409 from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders to the National Center for Neurogenic Communications Disorders at the University of Arizona.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Forster, K.I., Hector, J. Cascaded versus noncascaded models of lexical and semantic processing: Theturple effect. Memory & Cognition 30, 1106–1117 (2002). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194328
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194328