↓ Skip to main content

Semantic richness effects in lexical decision: The role of feedback

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
Semantic richness effects in lexical decision: The role of feedback
Published in
Memory & Cognition, July 2015
DOI 10.3758/s13421-015-0536-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melvin J. Yap, Gail Y. Lim, Penny M. Pexman

Abstract

Across lexical processing tasks, it is well established that words with richer semantic representations are recognized faster. This suggests that the lexical system has access to meaning before a word is fully identified, and is consistent with a theoretical framework based on interactive and cascaded processing. Specifically, semantic richness effects are argued to be produced by feedback from semantic representations to lower-level representations. The present study explores the extent to which richness effects are mediated by feedback from lexical- to letter-level representations. In two lexical decision experiments, we examined the joint effects of stimulus quality and four semantic richness dimensions (imageability, number of features, semantic neighborhood density, semantic diversity). With the exception of semantic diversity, robust additive effects of stimulus quality and richness were observed for the targeted dimensions. Our results suggest that semantic feedback does not typically reach earlier levels of representation in lexical decision, and further reinforces the idea that task context modulates the processing dynamics of early word recognition processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 73 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 27%
Student > Master 8 11%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 17 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 32 43%
Linguistics 11 15%
Neuroscience 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 19 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 September 2016.
All research outputs
#13,441,810
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#758
of 1,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,350
of 262,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#4
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,570 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 262,214 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.