70 likes | 258 Views
Date: 2007-05-15 Room: 8-309 Instructor: Mafuyu Kitahara Material: Balota D. A. (1994) “Visual word recognition” in M. A. Gernsbacher (ed.) Handbook of Psycholinguistics, pp. 303-358, San Diego: Academic Press. English Theme 3 Sample presentation (4). Interactive activation model. Structure
E N D
Date: 2007-05-15 Room: 8-309 Instructor: Mafuyu Kitahara Material: Balota D. A. (1994) “Visual word recognition” in M. A. Gernsbacher (ed.) Handbook of Psycholinguistics, pp. 303-358, San Diego: Academic Press. English Theme 3 Sample presentation (4)
Interactive activation model • Structure • Facilitate: • Inhibit: • Bottom-up • Within-level • Top-down
What about pseudoword? • MAVE similar to • MOVE, CAVE, MAKE, MADE, MATE… • MARK, MART, TAPE, CAKE, RAVE, PAVE… • No HIT on the real word • But enough activation from similar words • Better than nonword, e.g. MVEA
Limitations of IA model • Bigram frequency (e.g. ee > oe) • Little effect in Reicher-paradigm • IA model explains successfully • Needs a large lexicon (over critical limit) • NEED(target) activates • NERD, NEAT, NEAR, NEAP, NEST…(needs more) • FEEL, PEEL, KEEP, LEEP, MEET… • Bigram freq has effect in Low-freq words? • Neighborhood confusion • Still controversial…
Other issues and beyond • Positional frequency • Fits well in IA model • LOGOGEN: frequency-ordered word lists • Similar words have effects • Then, what is “SIMILAR”?
Schedule • 5/22: - p.315, before section B. • 5/29: - p.317, before “One of the more…” • 6/05: - p.319, before section C.