CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 53

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Form and meaning in early morphological processing: Comment on Feldman, O’Connor, and Moscoso del Prado Martín (2009)

Davis, Matthew H., Rastle, Kathleen·2010·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
DOI 10.3758/pbr.17.5.749
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Feldman, O'Connor, and Moscoso del Prado Martín (2009) reported evidence for differential priming of semantically transparent (talker-talk) and semantically opaque (corner-corn) morphological pairs under masked presentation conditions. The present commentary argues that these data should not call into question the theory that morphologically structured words undergo a segmentation process based solely on form, because (1) these results do not contradict existing evidence for morpho-orthographic segmentation, (2) funnel plots suggest that the lack of priming observed for semantically opaque items in this study is inconsistent with findings in the existing literature, and (3) orthographic characteristics of the semantically opaque pairs in this study (rather than semantic factors) are the most likely explanation for these discrepant results.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/pbr.17.5.749

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. 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
  2. Boudelaa, S., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2005). Discontinuous morphology in time: Incremental masked priming in Arabic. Language & Cognitive Processes, 20, 207–260. · DOI
  3. de Almeida, R. G., & Libben, G. (2005). Changing morphological structures: The effect of sentence context on the interpretation of structurally ambiguous English trimorphemic words. Language & Cognitive Processes, 20, 373–394. · DOI
  4. Dehaene, S., Cohen, L., Sigman, M., & Vinckier, F. (2005). The neu ral code for written words: A proposal. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 335–341. · DOI
  5. 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
  6. 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 · Paper page
  7. Feldman, L. B., O’Connor, P. A., & Moscoso del Prado Martín, F. (2009). Early morphological processing is morphosemantic and not simply morpho-orthographic: A violation of form-then-meaning accounts of word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 684–691. · DOI · Paper page
  8. 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
  9. Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 10, 680–698.
  10. 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
  11. Frost, R., Deutsch, A., Gilboa, O., Tannenbaum, M., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2000). Morphological priming: Dissociation of phonological, semantic, and morphological factors.Memory & Cognition, 28, 1277–1288. · DOI
  12. Frost, R., Forster, K. I., & Deutsch, A. (1997). What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew? A masked-priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 829–856.
  13. Gold, B. T., & Rastle, K. (2007). Neural correlates of morphological decomposition during visual word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1983–1993. · DOI
  14. Goldacre, B. (2008). Bad science. London: HarperCollins.
  15. Hyönä, J., & Pollatsek, A. (1998). Reading Finnish compound words: Eye fixations are affected by component morphemes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1612–1627.
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Light, R. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. · DOI
  19. Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1,476–4900. · DOI
  20. Longtin, C. M., Segui, J., & Halle, P. A. (2003). Morphological priming without morphological relationship.Language & Cognitive Processes, 18, 313–334. · DOI
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Marslen-Wilson, W. [D.], & Zhou, X. (1999). Abstractness, allomorphy, and lexical architecture. Language & Cognitive Processes, 14, 321–352. · DOI
  24. 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
  25. McCormick, S. F., Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2009). Adore-able not adorable? Orthographic underspecification studied with masked repetition priming. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21, 813–836. · DOI
  26. Morris, J., Frank, T., Grainger, J., & Holcomb, P. J. (2007). Semantic transparency and masked morphological priming: An ERP investigation. Psychophysiology, 44, 506–521. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Norris, D., & Kinoshita, S. (2008). Perception as evidence accumulation and Bayesian inference: Insights from masked priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 434–455. · DOI
  28. Oldham, P. D. (1962). A note on the analysis of repeated measures of the same subjects. Journal of Chronic Disability, 15, 969–977. · DOI
  29. Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R., & Rushton, L. (2006). Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 676–680. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Reading morphologically complex words: Some thoughts from masked priming. In S. Kinoshita & S. Lupker (Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 279–305). New York: Psychology Press.
  31. Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition is based on the analysis of orthography. Language & Cognitive Processes, 23, 942–971. · DOI · Paper page
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1997). How complex simple words can be. Journal of Memory & Language, 37, 118–139. · DOI
  35. Taft, M. (1994). Interactive-activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing. Language & Cognitive Processes, 9, 271–294. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 53

Metadata

Authors
Davis, M. H., & Rastle, K.
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2010-10
Volume
17
Issue
5
Pages
749-755
ISSN
  • 1069-9384
  • 1531-5320
DOI
10.3758/pbr.17.5.749
Cited by
53
References
3
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