The effect of semantic distance in yes/no and go/no-go semantic categorization tasks
Digital Document
Abstract |
Abstract
The effect of semantic distance (Lund & Burgess, 1996) was examined in three semantic categorization experiments. Experiment 1, a yes/no task that required participants to make animal/nonanimal judgments by responding to both sets of stimuli (Forster & Shen, 1996), revealed no effect of semantic distance. Experiment 2, a go/no-go task that required participants to respond to only the experimental (i.e., nonanimal) items, revealed a large effect of semantic distance. In addition, response latencies were longer and error rates were lower to the experimental items in Experiment 2 than to those in Experiment 1. These findings were replicated in Experiment 3, in which semantic distance and task condition were manipulated within subjects. We conclude that these results are consistent with (1) the view that the go/no-go tasks elicited more extensive processing of the experimental items and (2) a connectionist account of semantic activation, whereby processing is facilitated by the presence of semantic neighbors. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.; The effect of semantic distance (Lund & Burgess, 1996) was examined in three semantic categorization experiments. Experiment 1, a yes/no task that required participants to make animal/nonanimal judgments by responding to both sets of stimuli (Forster & Shen, 1996), revealed no effect of semantic distance. Experiment 2, a go/no-go task that required participants to respond to only the experimental (i.e., nonanimal) items, revealed a large effect of semantic distance. In addition, response latencies were longer and error rates were lower to the experimental items in Experiment 2 than to those in Experiment 1. These findings were replicated in Experiment 3, in which semantic distance and task condition were manipulated within subjects. We conclude that these results are consistent with (1) the view that the go/no-go tasks elicited more extensive processing of the experimental items and (2) a connectionist account of semantic activation, whereby processing is facilitated by the presence of semantic neighbors.; The effect of semantic distance (Lund & Burgess, 1996) was examined in three semantic categorization experiments. Experiment 1, a yes/no task that required participants to make animal/nonanimal judgments by responding to both sets of stimuli (Forster & Shen, 1996), revealed no effect of semantic distance. Experiment 2, a go/no-go task that required participants to respond to only the experimental (i.e., nonanimal) items, revealed a large effect of semantic distance. In addition, response latencies were longer and error rates were lower to the experimental items in Experiment 2 than to those in Experiment 1. These findings were replicated in Experiment 3, in which semantic distance and task condition were manipulated within subjects. We conclude that these results are consistent with (1) the view that the go/no-go tasks elicited more extensive processing of the experimental items and (2) a connectionist account of semantic activation, whereby processing is facilitated by the presence of semantic neighbors.; The effect of semantic distance (Lund & Burgess, 1996) was examined in three semantic categorization experiments. Experiment 1, a yes/no task that required participants to make animal/nonanimal judgments by responding to both sets of stimuli (Forster & Shen, 1996), revealed no effect of semantic distance. Experiment 2, a go/no-go task that required participants to respond to only the experimental (i.e., nonanimal) items, revealed a large effect of semantic distance. In addition, response latencies were longer and error rates were lower to the experimental items in Experiment 2 than to those in Experiment 1. These findings were replicated in Experiment 3, in which semantic distance and task condition were manipulated within subjects. We conclude that these results are consistent with (1) the view that the go/no-go tasks elicited more extensive processing of the experimental items and (2) a connectionist account of semantic activation, whereby processing is facilitat d by the presence of semantic neighbors. |
---|---|
Persons |
Persons
|
DOI |
DOI
10.3758/BF03196086
|
Collection(s) |
Collection(s)
|
Origin Information |
|
---|
Subject Topic |
Subject Topic
|
---|
Publication Title |
Publication Title
|
---|---|
Publication Number |
Publication Number
Volume 31, Issue 1
|
Publication Identifier |
Publication Identifier
issn: 0090-502X; 1532-5946
|
Publication Genre |
Publication Genre
|
Content type |
Content type
|
---|---|
Resource Type |
Resource Type
|
Related Item |
Related Item
|
---|
Handle |
Handle
Handle placeholder
|
---|
Rights Statement |
Rights Statement
|
---|