Abstract
Semantic similarity effects provide critical insight into the organization of semantic knowledge and the nature of semantic processing. In the present study, we examined the dynamics of semantic similarity effects by using the visual world eyetracking paradigm. Four objects were shown on a computer monitor, and participants were instructed to click on a named object, during which time their gaze position was recorded. The likelihood of fixating competitor objects was predicted by the degree of semantic similarity to the target concept. We found reliable, graded competition that depended on degree of target-competitor similarity, even for distantly related items for which priming has not been found in previous priming studies. Time course measures revealed a consistently earlier fixation peak for near semantic neighbors relative to targets. Computational investigations with an attractor dynamical model, a spreading activation model, and a decision model revealed that a combination of excitatory and inhibitory mechanisms is required to obtain such peak timing, providing new constraints on models of semantic processing.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S., &Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models.Journal of Memory & Language,38, 419–439.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,22, 577–660.
Chiarello, C., Burgess, C., Richards, L., &Pollock, A. (1990). Semantic and associative priming in the cerebral hemispheres: Some words do, some words don’t. . . sometimes, some places.Brain & Language,38, 75–104.
Collins, A. M., &Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.Psychological Review,82, 407–428.
Cooper, R. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing.Cognitive Psychology,6, 84–107.
Cree, G. S., &McRae, K. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns).Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,132, 163–201.
Cree, G. S., McRae, K., &McNorgan, C. (1999). An attractor model of lexical conceptual processing: Simulating semantic priming.Cognitive Science,23, 371–414.
Crystal, T. H., &House, A. S. (1990). Articulation rate and the duration of syllables and stress groups in connected speech.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,88, 101–112.
Dahan, D., Magnuson, J. S., &Tanenhaus, M. K. (2001). Time course of frequency effects in spoken-word recognition: Evidence from eye movements.Cognitive Psychology,42, 317–367.
Dahan, D., Magnuson, J. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., &Hogan, E. M. (2001). Subcategorical mismatches and the time course of lexical access: Evidence for lexical competition.Language & Cognitive Processes,16, 507–534.
Dahan, D., &Tanenhaus, M. K. (2005). Looking at the rope when looking for the snake: Conceptually mediated eye movements during spoken-word recognition.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,12, 453–459.
Goldstone, R. L., Lippa, Y., &Shiffrin, R. M. (2001). Altering object representations through category learning.Cognition,78, 27–43.
Hines, D., Czerwinski, M., Sawyer, P. K., &Dwyer, M. (1986). Automatic semantic priming: Effect of category exemplar level and word association level.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,12, 370–379.
Huettig, F., &Altmann, G. T. M. (2005). Word meaning and the control of eye fixation: Semantic competitor effects and the visual world paradigm.Cognition,96, B23-B32.
Huettig, F., &Altmann, G. T. M. (2007). Visual-shape competition during language-mediated attention is based on lexical input and not modulated by contextual appropriateness.Visual Cognition,15, 985–1018.
Huettig, F., &McQueen, J. M. (2007). The tug of war between phonological, semantic and shape information in language-mediated visual search.Journal of Memory & Language,57, 460–482.
Huettig, F., Quinlan, P. T., McDonald, S. A., &Altmann, G. T. M. (2006). Models of high-dimensional semantic space predict language mediated eye movements in the visual world.Acta Psychologica,121, 65–80.
Landauer, T. K., &Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and r epresentation of knowledge.Psychological Review,104, 211–240.
Luce, P. A., &Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model.Ear & Hearing,19, 1–36.
Luce, R. D. (1959).Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. New York: Wiley.
Lund, K., &Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,28, 203–208.
Magnuson, J. S., Dixon, J. A., Tanenhaus, M. K., &Aslin, R. N. (2007). The dynamics of lexical competition during spoken word recognition.Cognitive Science,31, 133–156.
Markram, H., Toledo-Rodriguez, M., Wang, Y., Gupta, A., Silberberg, G., &Wu, C. (2004). Interneurons of the neocortical inhibitory system.Nature Reviews Neuroscience,5, 793–807.
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition.Cognition,25, 71–102.
Marslen-Wilson, W. D., &Zwitserlood, P. (1989). Accessing spoken words: The importance of word onsets.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,15, 576–585.
McClelland, J. L., &Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception.Cognitive Psychology,18, 1–86.
McNamara, T. P. (1992). Priming and constraints it places on theories of memory and retrieval.Psychological Review,99, 650–662.
McRae, K., &Boisvert, S. (1998). Automatic semantic similarity priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 558–572.
McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., &McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things.Behavior Research Methods,37, 547–559.
Mirman, D., Dixon, J. A., &Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences.Journal of Memory & Language,59, 475–494.
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.
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., &Schreiber, T. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,36, 402–407.
O’Connor, C. M., Cree, G. S., &McRae, K. (2009). Conceptual hierarchies in a flat attractor network: Dynamics of learning and computations.Cognitive Science,33, 665–708. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01024.x
Pearlmutter, B. A. (1995). Gradient calculation for dynamic recurrent neural networks: A survey.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks,6, 1212–1228.
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.
Reppen, R., Ide, N., &Suderman, K. (2005).American National Corpus. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. http:// americannationalcorpus.org/.
Rogers, T. T., &McClelland, J. L. (2004).Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Salverda, A. P., Dahan, D., &McQueen, J. M. (2003). The role of prosodic boundaries in the resolution of lexical embedding in speech comprehension.Cognition,90, 51–89.
Shelton, J. R., &Martin, R. C. (1992). How semantic is automatic semantic priming?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 1191–1210.
Steyvers, M., &Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005). The large-scale structure of semantic networks: Statistical analyses and a model of semantic growth.Cognitive Science,29, 41–78.
Tanenhaus, M. K., Magnuson, J. S., Dahan, D., &Chambers, C. (2000). Eye movements and lexical access in spoken-language comprehension: Evaluating a linking hypothesis between fixations and linguistic processing.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,29, 557–580.
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., &Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension.Science,268, 1632–1634.
Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Lewis, W., &Garrett, M. F. (2004). Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis.Cognitive Psychology,48, 422–488.
Yee, E., &Sedivy, J. C. (2006). Eye movements to pictures reveal transient semantic activation during spoken word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,32, 1–14.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by NSF CAREER 0748684 to J.S.M. and National Institutes of Health Grants DC005765 to J.S.M., F32HD052364 to D.M., and HD001994 and HD40353 to Haskins Labs.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mirman, D., Magnuson, J.S. Dynamics of activation of semantically similar concepts during spoken word recognition. Memory & Cognition 37, 1026–1039 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.7.1026
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.7.1026