Literature DB >> 15190712

What plausibly affects plausibility? Concept coherence and distributional word coherence as factors influencing plausibility judgments.

Louise Connell1, Mark T Keane.   

Abstract

Our goal was to investigate the basis of human plausibility judgements. Previous research had suggested that plausibility is affected by two factors: concept coherence (the inferences made between parts of a discourse) and word coherence (the distributional properties of the words used). In two experiments, participants were asked to rate the plausibility of sentence pairs describing events. In the first, we manipulated concept coherence by using different inference types to link the sentences in a pair (e.g., causal or temporal). In the second, we manipulated word coherence by using latent semantic analysis, so two sentence pairs describing the same event had different distributional properties. The results showed that inference type affects plausibility; sentence pairs linked by causal inferences were rated highest, followed by attributal, temporal, and unrelated inferences. The distributional manipulations had no reliable effect on plausibility ratings. We conclude that the processes involved in rating plausibility are based on evaluating concept coherence, not word coherence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15190712     DOI: 10.3758/bf03196851

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  6 in total

1.  Semantic facilitation of lexical access during sentence processing.

Authors:  S A Duffy; J M Henderson; R K Morris
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 3.051

2.  Plausibility and argument structure in sentence comprehension.

Authors:  S R Speer; C Clifton
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1998-09

3.  What makes an analogy difficult? The effects of order and causal structure on analogical mapping.

Authors:  M T Keane
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  Testing two theories of conceptual combination: alignment versus diagnosticity in the comprehension and production of combined concepts.

Authors:  F J Costello; M T Keane
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 3.051

5.  Similarity, plausibility, and judgments of probability.

Authors:  E E Smith; E Shafir; D Osherson
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1993 Oct-Nov

6.  When plausibility judgments supersede fact retrieval: the example of the odd-even effect on product verification.

Authors:  P Lemaire; M Fayol
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1995-01
  6 in total
  6 in total

1.  A novel quantitative approach to concept analysis: the internomological network.

Authors:  Paul F Cook; Kai R Larsen; Teresa J Sakraida; Leli Pedro
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  2012 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.381

2.  Investigating effects of selectional restriction violations and plausibility violation severity on eye-movements in reading.

Authors:  Tessa Warren; Kerry McConnell
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2007-08

3.  A survey of etiologic hypotheses among testicular cancer researchers.

Authors:  A Stang; B Trabert; C Rusner; C Poole; K Almstrup; E Rajpert-De Meyts; K A McGlynn
Journal:  Andrology       Date:  2014-12-23       Impact factor: 3.842

4.  Embodied conceptual combination.

Authors:  Dermot Lynott; Louise Connell
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2010-11-25

5.  Pilgrims sailing the Titanic: plausibility effects on memory for misinformation.

Authors:  Scott R Hinze; Daniel G Slaten; William S Horton; Ryan Jenkins; David N Rapp
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2014-02

6.  Understanding Karma Police: The Perceived Plausibility of Noun Compounds as Predicted by Distributional Models of Semantic Representation.

Authors:  Fritz Günther; Marco Marelli
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-12       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.