4.5 Article

Multiple priming of lexically ambiguous and unambiguous targets in the cerebral hemispheres: The coarse coding hypothesis revisited

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1153, 期 -, 页码 144-157

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.03.046

关键词

cerebral hemispheres; word processing; semantic priming; summation priming; coarse coding hypothesis; lexical ambiguity

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG026308-03, R01 AG026308-04, R01 AG026308-05, R01 AG026308-01A1, AG026308, R01 AG026308, R01 AG026308-02] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The coarse coding hypothesis postulates that the cerebral hemispheres differ in their breadth of semantic activation, with the left hemisphere activating a narrow, focused semantic field and the right weakly activating a broader semantic field. In support of coarse coding, studies investigating priming for multiple senses of a lexically ambiguous word have reported a right hemisphere benefit. However, studies of mediated priming have failed to find a right hemisphere advantage I-or processing distantly linked, unambiguous words. To address this debate, the present study made use of a multiple priming paradigm in which two primes either converged onto the single meaning of an unambiguous, lexically associated target (LION-STRIPES-TIGER) or diverged onto different meanings of an ambiguous target (KIDNEY-PIANO-ORGAN). In two experiments, participants either made lexical decisions to lateralized targets (Experiment 1) or made a semantic relatedness judgment between primes and targets (Experiment 2). in both tasks, for both ambiguous and unambiguous triplets we found equivalent priming strengths and patterns across the two visual fields, counter to the predictions of the coarse coding hypothesis. Priming patterns further suggested that both hemispheres made use of lexical level representations in the lexical decision task and semantic representations in the semantic judgment task. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据