Solís-Macías VM

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 179-185
PDF size: 86.77 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The mental lexicon represents our linguistic knowledge about words, and organises them in individual registers. We examined the process of lexical access using three types of experimental stimuli: words, (2) pseudo–words, and (3) non– words. Three independent groups (N = 18) recognized lists containing the three types of experimental stimuli. Each list contained 32 of each type for a total of 96 stimuli. We used a factorial design for counterbalancing that each word was presented in its original form as well as transformed into a pseudo–word and a non–word. No experimental stimulus was ever presented in more than one single type (word, pseudo–word, or non–word) within a list. Each list containing the 96 stimuli was presented in a random and different arrangement for each participant. Our more relevant results suggest that reaction times (RT) to recognise the three types of stimuli follow a very specific pattern. The faster RTs were those to recognise non– words, followed by words, and being lowest for pseudo–words, according to highly significant statistical criteria. We also investigated the role of stimulus length on RT and found a systematic increase as a function of this factor for “short”, “medium”, and “long” stimuli. Lastly, we suggest that participants adjusted their response criterion as a function of the type of stimulus they recognised on each trial.

REFERENCES

1. Atkinson RC, Shiffrin RM. Human memory: a proposed system and its control processes. In Spence, K. W., & Spence, J. T. The psychology of learning and motivation. New York: Academic Press 1968;(2)89-195.

2. Baddeley AD. The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive. Science 2000;4:417-23.

3. Baddeley AD. Short–term and working memory. In E. Tulving & F. I. M. Craik (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Memory, New York: Oxford University Press 2000.

4. Baddeley AD. Working memory, thought and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2007.

5. Baddeley AD. Working memory. Current Biology, 2010;20:136-40.

6. Baddeley AD, Hitch G. Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory New York. Academic Press 1974.

7. Craik F, Lockhart R. Levels of processing: a framework for memory research. J Verb Lear Verb Behav 1972;11, 671-84.

8. Craik FIM, Tulving E. Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. J Exp Psychol Gen 1975;104,268–94.

9. Field, J. Psycholinguistics: the Key Concepts. United Kingdom, London: Routledge. 2004.

10. Frisch S, Large NR, Pisoni DB. Perception of wordlikeness: Effects of segment probability and length on processing non–words. JMem Lan 2000;42:481-96.

11. Green DM, Swets JA. Signal detection theory and psychophysics, 3rd Ed. Huntington, N.Y.: R. E. Krieger. 1974.

12. Kinoshita S, Taft M, Taplin JE. Nonword Facilitation in a Lexical Decision Task. J Exp Psychol Lear Mem Cognit 1985;11,(2):346-62.

13. Pillsbury (1897). A study in apperception. In R. S. Woodworth, & H. Schlosberg. Experimental Psychology. Oxford, England: Holt.(1954).

14. Pleskac TJ. A signal detection analysis of the recognition heuristic.Psychon Bull Rev 2007;14(3):379-91.

15. 15 Rapp B, Goldrick M. Speaking words: Contributions of cognitive neuropsychological research. Cognit Neuropsychol 2006;23(1):39-73.

16. Scharenborg O. Reaching over the gap: a review of efforts to link human and automatic speech recognition research. Speech Comm 2007;49(5):336-47.

17. Tulving E. Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson, eds. Organization of memory. New York. Academic Press. 1972.

18. Waugh NC, Norman DA. Primary memory. Psychol Rev 1965;72(2):89-104.

19. Welge–Lüßen A, Hauser R, Erdmann J, Schwob Ch, Probst R.Sprachaudiometrie mit Logatomen. Laryngo-Rhino-Otologie2008;76(02),57–64.

20. Wickens TD. Elementary signal detection theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001.