CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 203

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Early morphological processing is morphosemantic and not simply morpho-orthographic: A violation of form-then-meaning accounts of word recognition

Feldman, Laurie Beth, O’Connor, Patrick A., del Prado Martín, Fermín Moscoso·2009·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
DOI 10.3758/pbr.16.4.684PMC PMC2883124
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/pbr.16.4.684

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Baayen, R. H. (2007a). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Baayen, R. H. (2007b). Storage and computation in the mental lexicon. In G. Jarema & G. Libben (Eds.), Mental lexicon core perspectives (pp. 81–104). Amsterdam: Elsevier. · DOI
  3. Baayen, R. H., Wurm, L. E., & Aycock, J. (2007). Lexical dynamics for low-frequency complex words: A regression study across tasks and modalities. Mental Lexicon, 2, 419–463. · DOI
  4. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., et al. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459. · DOI
  5. Bentin, B., & Feldman, L. B. (1990). The contribution of morphological and semantic relatedness to repetition priming at short and long lags: Evidence from Hebrew. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42A, 693–711. · DOI
  6. Bertram, R., Schreuder, R., &Baayen, R. H. (2000). The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: The role of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 489–511. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.26.2.489 · DOI
  7. Bodner, G. E., & Masson, M. E. J. (2003). Beyond spreading activation: An influence of relatedness proportion on masked semantic priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 645–652. · DOI
  8. Devlin, J. T., Jamison, H. L., Matthews, P. M., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2004). Morphology and the internal structure of words. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 14984–14988. · DOI
  9. Diependaele, K., Sandra, D., & Grainger, J. (2005). Masked crossmodal morphological priming: Unraveling morpho-orthographic and morpho-semantic influences in early word recognition. Language & Cognitive Processes, 20, 75–114. doi:10.1080/01690960444000197 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Feldman, L. B., Barac-Cikoja, D., & Kostić, A. (2002). Semantic aspects of morphological processing: Transparency effects in Serbian. Memory & Cognition, 30, 629–636. · DOI
  11. Feldman, L. B., & Basnight-Brown, D. B. (2008). List context fosters semantic processing: Parallels between semantic and morphological facilitation when primes are forward masked. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 34, 680–687. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.680 · DOI
  12. Feldman, L. B., & Soltano, E. G. (1999). Morphological priming: The role of prime duration, semantic transparency, and affix position. Brain & Language, 68, 33–39. doi:10.1006/brln.1999.2077 · DOI
  13. Feldman, L. B., Soltano, E. G., Pastizzo, M. J., & Francis, S. E. (2004). What do graded effects of semantic transparency reveal about morphological processing? Brain & Language, 90, 17–30. doi:10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00416-4 · DOI
  14. Forster, K. I., & Azuma, T. (2000). Masked priming for prefixed words with bound stems: Does submit prime permit? Language & Cognitive Processes, 15, 539–561. doi:10.1080/01690960050119698 · DOI
  15. Forster, K. I., Davis, C., Schoknecht, C., & Carter, R. (1987). Masked priming with graphemically related forms: Repetition or partial activation? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39A, 211–251. · DOI
  16. Forster, K. I., Mohan, K., & Hector, J. (2003). The mechanics of masked priming. In S. Kinoshita & S. J. Lupker (Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 3–37). New York: Psychology Press.
  17. Jacobs, A. M., Grainger, J., & Ferrand, L. (1995). The incremental priming technique: A method for determining within-condition priming effects. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 1101–1110. · DOI
  18. Kazanina, N., Dukova-Zheleva, G., Geber, D., Kharlamov, V., & Tonciulescu, K. (2008). Decomposition into multiple morphemes during lexical access: A masked priming study of Russian nouns. Language & Cognitive Processes, 23, 800–823. doi:10.1080/01690960701799635 · DOI
  19. Kucera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of presentday American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
  20. Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259–284. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Lavric, A., Clapp, A., & Rastle, K. (2007). ERP evidence of morphological analysis from orthography: A masked priming study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 866–877. doi:10.1162/ jocn.2007.19.5.866 · DOI
  22. Longtin, C.-M., Segui, J., & Halle, P. A. (2003). Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language & Cognitive Processes, 18, 313–334. doi:10.1080/01690960244000036 · DOI
  23. Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 203–208. · DOI
  24. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Bozic, M., & Randall, B. (2008). Early decomposition in visual word recognition: Dissociating morphology, form, and meaning. Language & Cognitive Processes, 23, 394–421. doi:10.1080/01690960701588004 · DOI
  25. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Tyler, L. K., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101, 3–33. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.3 · DOI
  26. McCormick, S. F., Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Is there a ‘fete’ in ‘fetish’? Effects of orthographic opacity on morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory & Language, 58, 307–326. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.05.006 · DOI
  27. Milin, P., Filipović Durdević, D., & Moscoso del Prado Martín, F. (2009). The simultaneous effects of inflectional paradigms and classes on lexical recognition: Evidence from Serbian. Journal of Memory & Language, 60, 50–64. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2008.08.007 · DOI
  28. Morris, J., Frank, T., Grainger, J., & Holcomb, P. J. (2007). Semantic transparency and masked morphological priming: An ERP investigation. Psychophysiology, 44, 506–521. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00538.x · DOI · Paper page
  29. Moscoso del Prado Martín, F. (2007). Co-occurrence and the effect of inflectional paradigms. Lingua e Linguaggio, 2, 247–262.
  30. Plaut, D. C., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000) Are non-semantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing? Language & Cognitive Processes, 15, 445–485. doi:10.1080/01690960050119661 · DOI
  31. Pulvermüller, F., Assadollahi, R., & Elbert, T. (2001). Neuromagnetic evidence for early semantic access in word recognition. European Journal of Neuroscience, 13, 201–205. doi:10.1046/j.0953-816X.2000.01380.x · DOI
  32. Pulvermüller, F., Shtyrov, Y., & Ilmoniemi, R. J. (2003). Spatiotemporal dynamics of neural language processing: An MEG study using minimum-norm current estimates. NeuroImage, 20, 1020–1025. doi:10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00356-2 · DOI
  33. Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Reading morphologically complex words: Some thoughts from masked priming. In S. Kinoshita & S. J. Lupker (Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 279–305). New York: Psychology Press.
  34. Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language & Cognitive Processes, 23, 942–971. doi:10.1080/01690960802069730 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study. Language & Cognitive Processes, 15, 507–537. doi:10.1080/01690960050119689 · DOI
  36. Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother’s brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1090–1098. · DOI
  37. Rueckl, J. G., & Aicher, K. A. (2008). Are CORNER and BROTHER morphologically complex? Not in the long term. Language & Cognitive Processes, 23, 972–1001. doi:10.1080.01690960802211027 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 203

Metadata

Authors
Feldman, L. B., O’Connor, P. A., & del Prado Martín, F. M.
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2009-08
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
684-691
ISSN
  • 1069-9384
  • 1531-5320
DOI
10.3758/pbr.16.4.684
PMC
PMC2883124
Cited by
203
References
1
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

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