• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/31

Click to flip

31 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Burton
Bruce & Johnson 91
Connectionist model part bruce and young 86 model
explains priming
associative and repetition
Bruce and valentine: associative
self priming- stronger version associative
accross domains
need close association
cat membership not enough
Carson & Burton 2001
cat priming for primes does occur
weaker associative
Repetition Bruce & Valentine 85
name face/ famous person & had to give name
Test- fam decision
-unknown/ same view/ diff view/ name
- same view face - face fastest
-diff view - fastest
Name not prime face
Burton 94
Need to add hebbian learning to explain rep priming- IACL
Ellis 96
face naming, read name name to def fam decision
Ellis 96
priming btw FRU/NRU = PIN and PIN-NPU/SIU
actually prob occurs throughout model
Ellis 97
face/voice prime face over long/ short intervals (recog)
face prime face over long and short
voice prime voice over short only
short = residual pin activity
long = connection strength change
4 recog long intervals = domain only
Ellis 2000
Priming never seen for gender decision tasks
McNeill 2003
famous people unique surname (need to access SIU to det. gender)
Prime = nationality decision to face
gender decision to name
Test= gender decision to surname/ name/ face

Priming occurs if gender decision cannot be done prior to FRU/ NRU level - need access to diu so get priming due to residual PIN activity
Elbers, 1985).
, they have even been observed in children as young as 2
Brown and McNeill (1966)
were the first to examine the TOT state. induced TOTs by reading definitions of low-frequency words, found a proportion of the ps will be placed in a TOT state by this task. lexical retrieval is not an all-or-none affair
TOT
Partial information, - syllables, the initial letter or sound, and the stress pattern, retrieved. P also often output phonological neighbours like “secant”, “sextet”, and “sexton”. These other words that come to mind are called interlopers.
TOT
TOTs show us that we can be aware of the meaning of a word without being aware of its component sounds; and furthermore, that phonological representations are not unitary entities
partial activation Brown (1970)
target items are inaccessible as are only weakly represented in the system
blocking or interference hypotheses
Woodworth (1938),
Burke, MacKay, Worthley, and Wade (1991
evidence 4 partial activation :both an experimental and a diary study in a group of young and old participants. They argued that the retrieval deficit involves weak links between the semantic and phonological systems
Harley and MacAndrew (1992)
Partial activation: localized deficit w-in a two-stage model of lexical access, btwn the abstract lexical units and phonological forms.
Kohn et al. (1987)
evidence contrary to partial activation hypothesis- free association task. showed partial information provided by does not converge on the target.
, A.S. Brown (1991)
participants not say out loud the interlopers in order they came to mind. also a noisy system no reason why attempt at retrieval should give the same incorrect answer.
blocking or interference hypotheses
that the target item is actively suppressed by a stronger competitor
Jones and Langford (1987)
phonological blocking
Jones and Langford (1987)
They presented a phonological neighbour of the target word and showed that this increases the chance of a TOT state occurring, whereas presenting a semantic neighbour does not. They interpreted this as showing that TOTs primarily arise as a result of competition
Jones and Langford (1987)
) further showed that the blocker is only effective if it is presented at the time of retrieval rather than just before.
Perfect and Hanley (1992
methodological problems with these experiments. same results are found with these materials when the blockers are not presented, suggesting that the original results were an artefact of the materials
Harley and Bown (1998)
TOTs more likely to arise on low-frequency words have few close phonological neighbours. data fit a partial activation model ; phonological neighbours play a supporting rather than a blocking role in lexical access
processing
suggest the levels of semantic and phonological processing in lexical retrieval are distinct. The tip-of-the-tongue state readily explained as success of the first stage of lexicalization but failure of the second.
Antonini, and Garrett (1997)
grammatical gender can be preserved in tip-of-the-tongue states in Italian.
Antonini, and Garrett (1997)
though speakers cannot retrieve the phonological form of a word, they retrieve some syntactic information about it.
Badecker, Miozzo, & Zanuttini, 1995
preservation of gender in an Italian person with anomia, c could produce details about the grammatical gender of words that he could not produce
Badecker, Miozzo, & Zanuttini, 1995
It is important to note that for many Italian words grammatical gender is not predictable from semantics. could retrieve the gender for both regular and exception words, which suggests that he could not just have used partial phonological information to predict grammatical gender.