↓ Skip to main content

The dark side of incremental learning: A model of cumulative semantic interference during lexical access in speech production

Overview of attention for article published in Cognition, October 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
335 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
270 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The dark side of incremental learning: A model of cumulative semantic interference during lexical access in speech production
Published in
Cognition, October 2009
DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.09.007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gary M. Oppenheim, Gary S. Dell, Myrna F. Schwartz

Abstract

Naming a picture of a dog primes the subsequent naming of a picture of a dog (repetition priming) and interferes with the subsequent naming of a picture of a cat (semantic interference). Behavioral studies suggest that these effects derive from persistent changes in the way that words are activated and selected for production, and some have claimed that the findings are only understandable by positing a competitive mechanism for lexical selection. We present a simple model of lexical retrieval in speech production that applies error-driven learning to its lexical activation network. This model naturally produces repetition priming and semantic interference effects. It predicts the major findings from several published experiments, demonstrating that these effects may arise from incremental learning. Furthermore, analysis of the model suggests that competition during lexical selection is not necessary for semantic interference if the learning process is itself competitive.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 270 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 3%
Germany 3 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Virgin Islands, U.S. 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 249 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 83 31%
Researcher 42 16%
Student > Master 27 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 17 6%
Student > Bachelor 17 6%
Other 49 18%
Unknown 35 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 126 47%
Linguistics 36 13%
Neuroscience 14 5%
Engineering 6 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 2%
Other 25 9%
Unknown 58 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 June 2013.
All research outputs
#6,492,798
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Cognition
#1,563
of 3,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,246
of 107,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognition
#9
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 3,273 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 107,853 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 55% of its contemporaries.