Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.07.001
DC FieldValue
dc.titleIndividual differences in the joint effects of semantic priming and word frequency revealed by RT distributional analyses: The role of lexical integrity
dc.contributor.authorYap, M.J.
dc.contributor.authorTse, C.-S.
dc.contributor.authorBalota, D.A.
dc.date.accessioned2011-05-03T07:10:03Z
dc.date.available2011-05-03T07:10:03Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.identifier.citationYap, M.J., Tse, C.-S., Balota, D.A. (2009). Individual differences in the joint effects of semantic priming and word frequency revealed by RT distributional analyses: The role of lexical integrity. Journal of Memory and Language 61 (3) : 303-325. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.07.001
dc.identifier.issn0749596X
dc.identifier.urihttp://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/22234
dc.description.abstractWord frequency and semantic priming effects are among the most robust effects in visual word recognition, and it has been generally assumed that these two variables produce interactive effects in lexical decision performance, with larger priming effects for low-frequency targets. The results from four lexical decision experiments indicate that the joint effects of semantic priming and word frequency are critically dependent upon differences in the vocabulary knowledge of the participants. Specifically, across two Universities, additive effects of the two variables were observed in means, and in RT distributional analyses, in participants with more vocabulary knowledge, while interactive effects were observed in participants with less vocabulary knowledge. These results are discussed with reference to [Borowsky, R., & Besner, D. (1993). Visual word recognition: A multistage activation model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 813-840] multistage account and [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] single-mechanism model. In general, the findings are also consistent with a flexible lexical processing system that optimizes performance based on processing fluency and task demands. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
dc.description.urihttp://libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.07.001
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectEx-Gaussian analyses
dc.subjectIndividual differences
dc.subjectLexical decision
dc.subjectLexical integrity
dc.subjectLexical quality
dc.subjectRT distributional analyses
dc.subjectSemantic priming
dc.subjectVisual word recognition
dc.typeArticle
dc.contributor.departmentPSYCHOLOGY
dc.description.doi10.1016/j.jml.2009.07.001
dc.description.sourcetitleJournal of Memory and Language
dc.description.volume61
dc.description.issue3
dc.description.page303-325
dc.identifier.isiut000270620700003
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications

Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

55
checked on Aug 15, 2019

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

51
checked on Aug 15, 2019

Page view(s)

266
checked on Aug 19, 2019

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.