Back to quiz

6. What do dichotic listening tasks suggest?

  • Meanings accessed in parallel
  • Meanings accessed serially
  • All meanings always accessed
  • Pps can attend and unattend messages at will

7. What did Foss (1970) phoneme monitering study show?

  • Phonemes are harder to detect when the preceding context contains an ambiguous word
  • Ambig words are harder to detect when the preceding context contains an ambiguous word
  • Phonemes are easier to detect when the preceding context contains an ambiguous word
  • Ambiguous words are not easier to process in a strongly biasing context

8. What did Mehler, Segui & Carey find when word length was controlled for?

  • Extra processing is still needed for ambiguous words
  • Less processing is needed for ambiguous words
  • Phoneme monitering tasks are justly sensitive

9. What is set-membership feedback?

  • You cannot guess a word simply from its syntactic category
  • Context is dependent on meaning
  • You cannot guess a word simply from its semantic category
  • Context is independet of meaning

10. Why was Swinney et als (1976) study an improvement over previous techniques?

  • Online, cross modal priming, not sensitve to other variables and reflect processes as they happen
  • Offline, cross modal priming, sensitve to other variables and reflect processes as they happen
  • Offline, cross modal priming, not sensitve to other variables and reflect processes as they happen
  • Online, cross modal priming, sensitve to other variables and reflect processes as they happen

11. What was the finding of Schvaneveldt et al (1976)?

  • Pps were slowest RT when the ambig word was primed, context has NO effect
  • Pps were slowest RT when the ambig word was primed, context has an effect
  • Pps were fastest RT when the ambig word was primed, context has an effect
  • Pps were fastest RT when the ambig word was primed, context has NO effect

12. What does it mean if a word has balanced frequency?

  • All alternative meanings are equally common in the language
  • All alternative meanings have different frequencies in the language, one meaning is dominant

13. In a study by Tabossi & Zardon (1993), what was the effect of a subordinate constraining context?

  • Support for a strong modular account
  • Support for multiple access model
  • Support for selective priming

14. What did Hogabaum, Perfetti (1975) suggest about frequency effects?

  • Because the least frequent sense was 'garden pathed', pps have to reanalyse to fit a dominant meaning with context
  • Because the most frequent sense was 'garden pathed', pps have to reanalyse to fit a subordinate meaning with context
  • Because the least frequent sense was 'garden pathed', pps have to reanalyse to fit a subordinate meaning with context
  • Support for a selective access model

15. In a study by Tanenhaus et al (1979), at what point was their priming for only the context appropriate meaning?

  • 0ms
  • 200ms
  • 300ms
  • 100ms

16. Which model did Swinneys (1976) study support?

  • An effect of context --> selective access model
  • No effect of context --> multiple access model
  • No effect of context --> selective access model
  • An effect of context --> multiple access model

17. When is meaning used in the context-guided single-reading lexical access model?

  • a
  • When an ambiguous word is encountered, ALL meanings are accessed independent of context and contextually appropriate meaning is selected
  • Context is used to restrict access of meanings, so ONLY the contextually appropriate meaning is ever accessed
  • a

18. In the influential study by Swinney et al (1979) where primes were ambiguous words in a biasing context, what was the EARLY effect of context?

  • There was only priming for the APPROPRIATE meaning; context had NO effect
  • There was priming for BOTH appropriate and inappropriate meanings; context had an effect
  • There was priming for BOTH appropriate and inappropriate meanings; context had NO effect
  • There was only priming for the APPROPRIATE meaning; context had no effect

19. Which semantic model explains Rodd et al (2002s) lexical decision task data?

  • Semantic features; Recognition was faster for words with MANY senses and fewer meanings
  • Semantic features; Recognition was faster for words with fewer senses and MANY meanings
  • Syntactic features; Recognition was faster for words with MANY senses and fewer meanings
  • Syntactic features;Recognition was faster for words with fewer senses and MANY meanings

20. What is an issue with phoneme monitering tasks?

  • Temporally too slow
  • Too sensitive to ambiguity
  • Sensitive to variables other than ambiguity
  • Dont accurately measure activation