More Modeling but Still No Stages: Reply to Borowsky and Besner.
Plaut and Booth (2000) developed a distributed connectionist model of written word comprehension and evaluated it against empirical findings on individual and developmental differences in semantic priming in visual lexical decision. Borowsky and Besner (2006) raised a number of challenges for this m...
| Published in: | Psychological Review Vol. 113; no. 1; pp. 196 - 201 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
American Psychological Association
January 2006
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=507853806&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 507853806 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 0033295X PYV jtl: Psychological Review issn: 0033295X maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: January 2006 vid: 113 iid: 1 pid: 34 pub: American Psychological Association artinfo: ui: 507853806 10.1037/0033-295X.113.1.196 ppf: 196 ppct: 5 formats: tig: atl: More Modeling but Still No Stages: Reply to Borowsky and Besner. aug: au: Plaut, David C. Booth, James R. su: Word recognition Semantics in the English language Priming (Psychology) Human information processing sug: subj: Word recognition Semantics in the English language Priming (Psychology) Human information processing ab: Plaut and Booth (2000) developed a distributed connectionist model of written word comprehension and evaluated it against empirical findings on individual and developmental differences in semantic priming in visual lexical decision. Borowsky and Besner (2006) raised a number of challenges for this model. First, the model was not shown to be capable of accurately distinguishing words from orthographically matched nonwords. Second, its use of a semantic measure for performing lexical decision appears inconsistent with evidence of normal lexical decision in brain-damaged patients with semantic impairments. Third, the explanation offered for additive and interactive effects in the model appears incompatible with certain aspects of existing empirical findings on the joint effects word frequency, priming context, and stimulus quality. In this reply, the authors demonstrate with additional modeling that none of these issues is problematic for the model. Reprinted by permission of the publisher. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|