The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Semantic transparency and masked morphological priming: an ERP investigation.
Abstract
The role of semantics in the segmentation of morphologically complex words was examined using event‐related potentials (ERPs) recorded to target words primed by semantically transparent (hunter–hunt,) opaque (corner–corn), and orthographically related (scandal–scan) masked primes. Behavioral data showed that only transparent items gave rise to priming. The ERP data showed both N250 and the N400 effects with transparent items generating greater priming than orthographic or opaque. Furthermore, priming effects across conditions revealed the existence of a significant linear trend, with transparent items showing the greatest effects and orthographic items the smallest, suggesting that these priming effects vary as a function of morphological structure and semantic transparency. The results are discussed in terms of a model of morphological processing.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Evidence in favor of this approach, and against purely morpho-orthographic accounts (Rastle and Davis, 2008), comes from masked priming studies showing an advantage for semantically transparent derived primes relative to semantically opaque and/or pseudo-derived primes (Diependaele et al., 2005, 2009; Morris et al., 2007).”
From A Dual-Route Approach to Orthographic Processing (2011) · cites this paper as Morris et al., 2007
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 30
- 10.1073/pnas.0403766101 · DOI
- 10.1080/01690960444000197 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1162/089892904323057326 · DOI
- 10.1515/ling.2002.011 · DOI
- 10.1037/0096-1523.21.5.1098 · DOI
- 10.1037/0278-7393.26.6.1431 · DOI
- 10.3758/BF03194964 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00416-4 · DOI
- 10.1037/0278-7393.10.4.680 · DOI
- 10.3758/BF03197687 · DOI
- 10.3758/BF03196148 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90042-I · DOI
- 10.1037/0278-7393.29.6.1256 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2006.00383.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1993.tb03204.x · DOI
- 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.10.1631 · DOI
- 10.1162/089892902760191153 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.01.003 · DOI
- 10.3758/BF03208367 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00085-4 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.008 · DOI
- 10.1080/01690960244000036 · DOI
- 10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.3 · DOI
- 10.1006/brln.1997.1793 · DOI
- 10.1080/01690960050119661 · DOI
- 10.1080/01690960050119689 · DOI
- 10.3758/BF03196742 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90219-6 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80051-X · DOI
- Voga M., Cognate status and cross‐script translation priming, Memory & Cognition
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Dual-Route Approach to Orthographic Processing
Grainger, J., & Ziegler, J. C. (2011) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00054 · Cited by 459
Self-citationHebrew Brain vs. English Brain: Language Modulates the Way It Is Processed
Bick, A. S., Goelman, G., & Frost, R. (2011) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21583 · Cited by 71
“, 2007), others could not clearly report an effect for semantically opaque morphologically related words (Morris et al., 2007).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Morris, J., Frank, T., Grainger, J., & Holcomb, P. J.
- Venue
- Psychophysiology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-05-10
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 506-521
- ISSN
- 0048-5772
- 1469-8986
- Cited by
- 125
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
