| Title |
Semantic Ambiguity: Do Multiple Meanings Inhibit or Facilitate Word Recognition?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10936-017-9554-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Juan Haro, Pilar Ferré |
| Abstract |
It is not clear whether multiple unrelated meanings inhibit or facilitate word recognition. Some studies have found a disadvantage for words having multiple meanings with respect to unambiguous words in lexical decision tasks (LDT), whereas several others have shown a facilitation for such words. In the present study, we argue that these inconsistent findings may be due to the approach employed to select ambiguous words across studies. To address this issue, we conducted three LDT experiments in which we varied the measure used to classify ambiguous and unambiguous words. The results suggest that multiple unrelated meanings facilitate word recognition. In addition, we observed that the approach employed to select ambiguous words may affect the pattern of experimental results. This evidence has relevant implications for theoretical accounts of ambiguous words processing and representation. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 12 | 31% |
| Linguistics | 7 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 February 2018.
All research outputs
#5,808,344
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
#42
of 352 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,039
of 441,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 352 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,821 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.