Cargando…

Must analysis of meaning follow analysis of form? A time course analysis

Many models of word recognition assume that processing proceeds sequentially from analysis of form to analysis of meaning. In the context of morphological processing, this implies that morphemes are processed as units of form prior to any influence of their meanings. Some interpret the apparent abse...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Feldman, Laurie B., Milin, Petar, Cho, Kit W., Moscoso del Prado Martín, Fermín, O’Connor, Patrick A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4366802/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25852512
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00111
_version_ 1782362423381983232
author Feldman, Laurie B.
Milin, Petar
Cho, Kit W.
Moscoso del Prado Martín, Fermín
O’Connor, Patrick A.
author_facet Feldman, Laurie B.
Milin, Petar
Cho, Kit W.
Moscoso del Prado Martín, Fermín
O’Connor, Patrick A.
author_sort Feldman, Laurie B.
collection PubMed
description Many models of word recognition assume that processing proceeds sequentially from analysis of form to analysis of meaning. In the context of morphological processing, this implies that morphemes are processed as units of form prior to any influence of their meanings. Some interpret the apparent absence of differences in recognition latencies to targets (SNEAK) in form and semantically similar (sneaky-SNEAK) and in form similar and semantically dissimilar (sneaker-SNEAK) prime contexts at a stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) of 48 ms as consistent with this claim. To determine the time course over which degree of semantic similarity between morphologically structured primes and their targets influences recognition in the forward masked priming variant of the lexical decision paradigm, we compared facilitation for the same targets after semantically similar and dissimilar primes across a range of SOAs (34–100 ms). The effect of shared semantics on recognition latency increased linearly with SOA when long SOAs were intermixed (Experiments 1A and 1B) and latencies were significantly faster after semantically similar than dissimilar primes at homogeneous SOAs of 48 ms (Experiment 2) and 34 ms (Experiment 3). Results limit the scope of form-then-semantics models of recognition and demonstrate that semantics influences even the very early stages of recognition. Finally, once general performance across trials has been accounted for, we fail to provide evidence for individual differences in morphological processing that can be linked to measures of reading proficiency.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4366802
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43668022015-04-07 Must analysis of meaning follow analysis of form? A time course analysis Feldman, Laurie B. Milin, Petar Cho, Kit W. Moscoso del Prado Martín, Fermín O’Connor, Patrick A. Front Hum Neurosci Neuroscience Many models of word recognition assume that processing proceeds sequentially from analysis of form to analysis of meaning. In the context of morphological processing, this implies that morphemes are processed as units of form prior to any influence of their meanings. Some interpret the apparent absence of differences in recognition latencies to targets (SNEAK) in form and semantically similar (sneaky-SNEAK) and in form similar and semantically dissimilar (sneaker-SNEAK) prime contexts at a stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) of 48 ms as consistent with this claim. To determine the time course over which degree of semantic similarity between morphologically structured primes and their targets influences recognition in the forward masked priming variant of the lexical decision paradigm, we compared facilitation for the same targets after semantically similar and dissimilar primes across a range of SOAs (34–100 ms). The effect of shared semantics on recognition latency increased linearly with SOA when long SOAs were intermixed (Experiments 1A and 1B) and latencies were significantly faster after semantically similar than dissimilar primes at homogeneous SOAs of 48 ms (Experiment 2) and 34 ms (Experiment 3). Results limit the scope of form-then-semantics models of recognition and demonstrate that semantics influences even the very early stages of recognition. Finally, once general performance across trials has been accounted for, we fail to provide evidence for individual differences in morphological processing that can be linked to measures of reading proficiency. Frontiers Media S.A. 2015-03-11 /pmc/articles/PMC4366802/ /pubmed/25852512 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00111 Text en Copyright © 2015 Feldman, Milin, Cho, Moscoso del Prado Martín and O’Connor. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Feldman, Laurie B.
Milin, Petar
Cho, Kit W.
Moscoso del Prado Martín, Fermín
O’Connor, Patrick A.
Must analysis of meaning follow analysis of form? A time course analysis
title Must analysis of meaning follow analysis of form? A time course analysis
title_full Must analysis of meaning follow analysis of form? A time course analysis
title_fullStr Must analysis of meaning follow analysis of form? A time course analysis
title_full_unstemmed Must analysis of meaning follow analysis of form? A time course analysis
title_short Must analysis of meaning follow analysis of form? A time course analysis
title_sort must analysis of meaning follow analysis of form? a time course analysis
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4366802/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25852512
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00111
work_keys_str_mv AT feldmanlaurieb mustanalysisofmeaningfollowanalysisofformatimecourseanalysis
AT milinpetar mustanalysisofmeaningfollowanalysisofformatimecourseanalysis
AT chokitw mustanalysisofmeaningfollowanalysisofformatimecourseanalysis
AT moscosodelpradomartinfermin mustanalysisofmeaningfollowanalysisofformatimecourseanalysis
AT oconnorpatricka mustanalysisofmeaningfollowanalysisofformatimecourseanalysis