Accessing Different Types of Lexical Semantic Information: Evidence From Priming

By H. Moss, R. Ostrin, Lorraine K. Tyler, William D. Marslen-Wilson. 1995

Subfields: Cognitive Science & Psychology, Linguistics

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Science & Psychology

1. Scott McDonald
2. Will Lowe
3. Ken McRae
4. Zachary Estes
5. Sabrina Golonka
6. Lara L. Jones
7. K. Erk
8. Stephen Clark

In Linguistics

1. Will Lowe
2. Scott McDonald

Citations in the corpus

• The role of contrastive intonation contours in the retrieval of contextual alternatives (2010, background): “Also, this effect cannot be explained by the fact that contrastive, category associates generally elicit stronger priming than non-contrastive ones, even when they are barely related to the prime (Fischler, 1977 and Lupker, 1984 for visual-visual priming; Moss, Ostrin, Tyler, & Marslen-Wilson, ”
• Deliberate Learning and Vocabulary Acquisition in a Second Language (2011, background): “This is because when a semantic relationship is accompanied by a normative association, a larger semantic priming effect is observed due to the so-called associative boost (Lucas, 2000; Moss et al., 1995).”
• Modelling functional priming and the associative boost (1998, methodology): “In our computational simulation of a recent single word auditory lexical decision experiment (Moss et al., 1995, Experiment 2), we found that a corpus-derived measure of two words’ distributional similarity corresponded well to the patterns of lexical decision facilitationobserved in human subjects.”
• Integrating Verbs, Situation Schemas, and Thematic Role Concepts (2001, result): “…was considered associated if the noun was produced to the verb by greater than 5% of the subjects, which is a conservative criterion when compared to other priming experiments that have aimed to eliminate associatively related items from their stimuli (Moss et al., 1995; Shelton & Martin, 1992).”
• Thematic thinking : the apprehension and consequences of thematic relations (2011, background): “, BONE ! DOG, NEEDLE ! DOCTOR, MONKEY ! BANANA, FLOWER ! BEE), and such instrumental and script-based priming are also reliably observed among undergraduates (Hare et al., 2009; Moss et al., 1995).”