Literature DB >> 15732698

Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: an application of the change-detection paradigm.

Patrick Sturt1, Anthony J Sanford, Andrew Stewart, Eugene Dawydiak.   

Abstract

A number of lines of study suggest that word meanings are not always fully exploited in comprehension. In two experiments, we used a text-change paradigm to study depth of semantic processing during reading. Participants were instructed to detect words that changed across two consecutive presentations of short texts. The results suggest that the full details of word meanings are not always incorporated into the interpretation and that the degree of semantic detail in the representation is a function of linguistic focus. The results provide evidence for the idea that representations are only good enough for the purpose at hand (Ferreira, Bailey, & Ferraro, 2002).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15732698     DOI: 10.3758/bf03196716

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  9 in total

1.  Change detection in the flicker paradigm: the role of fixation position within the scene.

Authors:  A Hollingworth; G Schrock; J M Henderson
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2001-03

2.  Depth of processing in language comprehension: not noticing the evidence.

Authors:  Anthony Sanford; Patrick Sturt
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2002-09-01       Impact factor: 20.229

3.  Focus as a contextual priming mechanism in reading.

Authors:  R K Morris; J R Folk
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1998-11

4.  Linguistic focus affects eye movements during reading.

Authors:  S Birch; K Rayner
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1997-09

5.  Word frequency effects and eye movements during two readings of a text.

Authors:  G E Raney; K Rayner
Journal:  Can J Exp Psychol       Date:  1995-06

6.  Sentence matching and well-formedness.

Authors:  K I Forster; B J Stevenson
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1987-07

7.  A case study of anomaly detection: shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment.

Authors:  S B Barton; A J Sanford
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1993-07

8.  Change blindness.

Authors:  D J Simons; D T Levin
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 20.229

9.  Mechanisms that improve referential access.

Authors:  M A Gernsbacher
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1989-07
  9 in total
  32 in total

1.  Effects of syntactic prominence on eye movements during reading.

Authors:  Stacy Birch; Keith Rayner
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2010-09

2.  Quantifiers more or less quantify online: ERP evidence for partial incremental interpretation.

Authors:  Thomas P Urbach; Marta Kutas
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2010-08-01       Impact factor: 3.059

3.  Linguistic focus and memory: an eye movement study.

Authors:  Peter Ward; Patrick Sturt
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2007-01

4.  Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: evidence from self-paced reading.

Authors:  Benjamin Swets; Timothy Desmet; Charles Clifton; Fernanda Ferreira
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2008-01

5.  Information structure expectations in sentence comprehension.

Authors:  Katy Carlson; Michael Walsh Dickey; Lyn Frazier; Charles Clifton
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2008-04-18       Impact factor: 2.143

6.  Enhancement and suppression effects resulting from information structuring in sentences.

Authors:  Alison J S Sanford; Jessica Price; Anthony J Sanford
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2009-09

7.  Listeners consider alternative speaker productions in discourse comprehension and memory: Evidence from beat gesture and pitch accenting.

Authors:  Laura M Morett; Scott H Fraundorf
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2019-11

Review 8.  A review on the cognitive function of information structure during language comprehension.

Authors:  Lin Wang; Xiaoqing Li; Yufang Yang
Journal:  Cogn Neurodyn       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 5.082

9.  Pushed aside: Parentheticals, Memory and Processing.

Authors:  Brian Dillon; Charles Clifton; Lyn Frazier
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.331

10.  The manuscript that we finished: structural separation reduces the cost of complement coercion.

Authors:  Matthew W Lowder; Peter C Gordon
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2014-07-07       Impact factor: 3.051

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.