• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

语义加工中的个体差异:来自卡尔加里语义决策项目的见解。

Individual differences in semantic processing: Insights from the Calgary semantic decision project.

作者信息

Pexman Penny M, Yap Melvin J

机构信息

Department of Psychology, University of Calgary.

Department of Psychology, National University Singapore.

出版信息

J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2018 Jul;44(7):1091-1112. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000499. Epub 2018 Feb 26.

DOI:10.1037/xlm0000499
PMID:29481104
Abstract

Most previous studies of semantic processing have examined group-level data. We investigated the possibility that there might be individual differences in semantic decision performance even among the standard undergraduate population and that such differences might provide insights into semantic processing. We analyzed the Calgary Semantic Decision Project dataset, which includes concrete/abstract semantic decision responses to thousands of words and also a vocabulary measure for each of 312 participants. Results of our analyses showed that semantic decision responses had good reliability, and that the speed of those responses was related to individual differences as assessed by vocabulary scores and also by diffusion model parameters. That is, semantic decisions were faster for participants with higher vocabulary scores and for participants with steeper drift rates. Further, in their semantic decision responses high vocabulary participants showed more sensitivity to some lexical/semantic predictors and less sensitivity to others. For responses to both concrete and abstract words, high vocabulary participants were more sensitive to word concreteness and less sensitive to word frequency and age of acquisition. For concrete words, high vocabulary participants were also more sensitive to semantic neighborhood similarity. The results suggest that high vocabulary participants are able to more readily access semantic information and are better able to emphasize task-relevant dimensions. In sum, the results are consistent with a dynamic, multidimensional account of semantic processing. (PsycINFO Database Record

摘要

以往大多数语义加工研究都考察了组水平数据。我们探究了一种可能性,即即便在标准的大学生群体中,语义决策表现也可能存在个体差异,且这些差异可能为语义加工提供见解。我们分析了卡尔加里语义决策项目数据集,该数据集包括对数千个单词的具体/抽象语义决策反应,以及312名参与者每人的词汇量测量数据。我们的分析结果表明,语义决策反应具有良好的信度,并且这些反应的速度与通过词汇分数以及扩散模型参数评估的个体差异有关。也就是说,词汇分数较高的参与者以及漂移率较陡的参与者的语义决策速度更快。此外,高词汇量参与者在语义决策反应中对某些词汇/语义预测因素表现出更高的敏感性,而对其他因素则表现出较低的敏感性。对于具体词和抽象词的反应,高词汇量参与者对词的具体性更敏感,而对词频和习得年龄则较不敏感。对于具体词,高词汇量参与者对语义邻域相似性也更敏感。结果表明,高词汇量参与者能够更轻松地获取语义信息,并且更善于强调与任务相关的维度。总之,这些结果与语义加工的动态、多维度解释相一致。(《心理学文摘数据库记录》

相似文献

1
Individual differences in semantic processing: Insights from the Calgary semantic decision project.语义加工中的个体差异:来自卡尔加里语义决策项目的见解。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2018 Jul;44(7):1091-1112. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000499. Epub 2018 Feb 26.
2
The Calgary semantic decision project: concrete/abstract decision data for 10,000 English words.卡尔加里语义决策项目:一万个英语单词的具体/抽象决策数据。
Behav Res Methods. 2017 Apr;49(2):407-417. doi: 10.3758/s13428-016-0720-6.
3
Orthographic neighborhood and concreteness effects in the lexical decision task.词汇判断任务中的正字法邻域效应和具体性效应。
Brain Lang. 2004 Nov;91(2):252-64. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2004.03.001.
4
Individual variability in the semantic processing of English compound words.英语复合词语义处理中的个体差异。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2018 Mar;44(3):421-439. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000442. Epub 2017 Sep 21.
5
Effects of semantic neighborhood density in abstract and concrete words.抽象词和具体词的语义邻近密度的影响。
Cognition. 2017 Dec;169:46-53. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.08.004. Epub 2017 Aug 14.
6
Semantic classification of pictures and words.图片和文字的语义分类。
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2015;68(8):1502-18. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2014.975728. Epub 2014 Nov 18.
7
Semantic neighborhood effects on the recognition of ambiguous words.语义邻域对歧义单词识别的影响。
Mem Cognit. 2003 Jun;31(4):505-15. doi: 10.3758/bf03196092.
8
The neural manifestation of the word concreteness effect: an electrical neuroimaging study.词语具体性效应的神经表现:一项电神经影像学研究。
Neuropsychologia. 2012 Apr;50(5):880-91. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.01.028. Epub 2012 Jan 31.
9
A database of 629 English compound words: ratings of familiarity, lexeme meaning dominance, semantic transparency, age of acquisition, imageability, and sensory experience.629 个英语复合词数据库:熟悉度评分、词元意义主导性、语义透明度、习得年龄、形象性和感官体验。
Behav Res Methods. 2015 Dec;47(4):1004-1019. doi: 10.3758/s13428-014-0523-6.
10
Lexical familiarity and processing efficiency: individual differences in naming, lexical decision, and semantic categorization.词汇熟悉度与加工效率:命名、词汇判断及语义分类中的个体差异
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1993 Sep;122(3):316-30. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.122.3.316.

引用本文的文献

1
Reward as a facet of word meaning: Ratings of motivation for 8,601 English words.作为词义一个方面的奖赏:对8601个英语单词的动机评级
Behav Res Methods. 2025 Jul 29;57(9):242. doi: 10.3758/s13428-025-02762-8.
2
Keystrokes: A practical exploration of semantic drift in timed word association tasks.击键:定时词汇联想任务中语义漂移的实际探索。
PLoS One. 2024 Jul 1;19(7):e0305568. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305568. eCollection 2024.
3
How cognitive selection affects language change.认知选择如何影响语言变化。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024 Jan 2;121(1):e2220898120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2220898120. Epub 2023 Dec 27.
4
Consensus Paper: Current Perspectives on Abstract Concepts and Future Research Directions.共识文件:抽象概念的当前观点与未来研究方向
J Cogn. 2023 Oct 10;6(1):62. doi: 10.5334/joc.238. eCollection 2023.
5
Non-arbitrary mappings between size and sound of English words: Form typicality effects during lexical access and memory.英语单词大小与发音之间的非任意映射:词汇通达和记忆过程中的形式典型性效应。
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2024 May;77(5):943-963. doi: 10.1177/17470218231184940. Epub 2023 Jul 6.
6
Age differences in semantic network structure: Acquiring knowledge shapes semantic memory.年龄对语义网络结构的影响:获取知识塑造语义记忆。
Psychol Aging. 2023 Mar;38(2):87-102. doi: 10.1037/pag0000721. Epub 2023 Jan 23.
7
Social semantics: the organization and grounding of abstract concepts.社会语义学:抽象概念的组织和基础。
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2023 Feb 13;378(1870):20210363. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2021.0363. Epub 2022 Dec 26.
8
Using electrophysiological correlates of early semantic priming to test models of reading aloud.利用早期语义启动的电生理学相关性来测试朗读模型。
Sci Rep. 2022 Mar 28;12(1):5224. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-09279-6.
9
Different types of semantic interference, same lapses of attention: Evidence from Stroop tasks.不同类型的语义干扰,相同的注意力缺失:来自斯特鲁普任务的证据。
Mem Cognit. 2022 Jul;50(5):898-910. doi: 10.3758/s13421-021-01256-0. Epub 2022 Jan 17.
10
Development of Abstract Word Knowledge.抽象词汇知识的发展
Front Psychol. 2021 Jun 7;12:686478. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.686478. eCollection 2021.