1 / 19

Semantic Satiation and Lexical Ambiguity Resolution

Semantic Satiation and Lexical Ambiguity Resolution. Mike Braverman Psyc 525. Semantic Satiation. bear. bear. bear. Semantic Satiation. Purpose? Mechanism for inhibiting useless knowledge Background noise How? Neural fatigue. Semantic Satiation. Why?

yonah
Download Presentation

Semantic Satiation and Lexical Ambiguity Resolution

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Semantic Satiation and Lexical Ambiguity Resolution Mike Braverman Psyc 525

  2. Semantic Satiation bear bear bear

  3. Semantic Satiation • Purpose? • Mechanism for inhibiting useless knowledge • Background noise • How? • Neural fatigue

  4. Semantic Satiation • Why? • What is it about the way we represent knowledge… • To understand, need to know about • Semantic networks and activation • Interactive models (i.e., Cottrell, 1988)

  5. Semantic Networks

  6. Semantic Networks - Priming

  7. Semantic Networks, Priming, and Semantic Satiation

  8. Semantic networks – interactive models • Cottrell (1988) • Semantic representation for each meaning of an ambiguous word • Inhibitory connections between meanings • Competing hypotheses • Gathering evidence via context • Deck – floor of ship, Deck – cards • Priming one meaning inhibits processing of another (Balota & Duchek, 1991; Simpson & Kellas, 1989).

  9. Semantic Satiation and Lexical Ambiguity • Homographs • Yay! • How does satiation relate to lexical ambiguity resolution? • Would satiating one meaning of a homograph (organ) affect the ease of processing of another meaning?

  10. Experiment 1: Design • Three words presented: the prime, by itself, then the homograph and the target word together • Task – make a relatedness judgment for the homograph-target pair • Concordant, discordant, and neutral priming conditions • Priming a helpful (concordant) meaning should decrease RT, and a misleading (discordant) meaning increase RT • But these effects should be attenuated by prime repetition

  11. Experiment 1: Design

  12. Experiment 1: Predictions

  13. Results: Experiment 1

  14. Results: Experiment 1

  15. Discussion: Experiment 1 • Priming • Yes • But why no satiation? Author says… • Task different, more complex? • Addition of misleading condition led to strategizing, more deliberative and slower responses • PIANO • Are these words related? ORGAN – KIDNEY • N. • WRONG!

  16. Experiment 2: Design • Wanted to eliminate strategizing • Encouraged to respond quickly • Positive feedback really works • RT below 1,501 ms is… • Terrific! • RT 1,501 – 2,000 ms is… • Good! • RT above 2,999 ms is… • TOO SLOW! • No more discordant condition

  17. Results: Experiment 2

  18. Results: Experiment 2

  19. What have we learned? • Lexical ambiguity resolution • Priming is one way that context is used • Priming repeated too often can be less effective (but not a lot less, and only sometimes?) • Strategic processes may mask semantic satiation effects

More Related