Can a lexical decision task predict efficiency in the judgment of ambiguous sentences?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Laurence,Paulo Guirro
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: Pinto,Tatiana Matheus, Rosa,Alexandre Tadeu Faé, Macedo,Elizeu Coutinho
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Psicologia (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-79722018000105103
Resumo: Abstract The lexicon plays a fundamental role in reading, but little is known about how it influences reading efficiency. Thus, this study seeks to identify which lexical factors in a lexical decision task are relevant in a semantic decision test. A total of 33 university students were recruited to perform a lexical decision task and a semantic decision task. The results revealed differences between the three types of words in the lexical decision task for all measures, but only in the regressive saccades for the semantic decision task. Ambiguous sentences triggered fewer regressions than sentences related to objects. The only lexical measure found to predict efficiency was average time on regular words, which predicted 24% of the efficiency. We discuss the implications of the use of a lexical decision task and the use of the inverse efficiency score as a semantic measure, and we discuss how the lexicon can predict semantic comprehension.
id UFRGS-5_d71cff15d5c40a7f94cfb856bcb72dd6
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0102-79722018000105103
network_acronym_str UFRGS-5
network_name_str Psicologia (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Can a lexical decision task predict efficiency in the judgment of ambiguous sentences?ReadingComprehensionSemantic decisionEye-trackingAmbiguityRegressive saccadesLexiconAbstract The lexicon plays a fundamental role in reading, but little is known about how it influences reading efficiency. Thus, this study seeks to identify which lexical factors in a lexical decision task are relevant in a semantic decision test. A total of 33 university students were recruited to perform a lexical decision task and a semantic decision task. The results revealed differences between the three types of words in the lexical decision task for all measures, but only in the regressive saccades for the semantic decision task. Ambiguous sentences triggered fewer regressions than sentences related to objects. The only lexical measure found to predict efficiency was average time on regular words, which predicted 24% of the efficiency. We discuss the implications of the use of a lexical decision task and the use of the inverse efficiency score as a semantic measure, and we discuss how the lexicon can predict semantic comprehension.Curso de Pós-Graduação em Psicologia da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul2018-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-79722018000105103Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica v.31 2018reponame:Psicologia (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Online)instname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)instacron:UFRGS10.1186/s41155-018-0093-0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessLaurence,Paulo GuirroPinto,Tatiana MatheusRosa,Alexandre Tadeu FaéMacedo,Elizeu Coutinhoeng2018-08-02T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0102-79722018000105103Revistahttps://www.scielo.br/j/prc/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpprc@springeropen.com1678-71530102-7972opendoar:2018-08-02T00:00Psicologia (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Online) - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Can a lexical decision task predict efficiency in the judgment of ambiguous sentences?
title Can a lexical decision task predict efficiency in the judgment of ambiguous sentences?
spellingShingle Can a lexical decision task predict efficiency in the judgment of ambiguous sentences?
Laurence,Paulo Guirro
Reading
Comprehension
Semantic decision
Eye-tracking
Ambiguity
Regressive saccades
Lexicon
title_short Can a lexical decision task predict efficiency in the judgment of ambiguous sentences?
title_full Can a lexical decision task predict efficiency in the judgment of ambiguous sentences?
title_fullStr Can a lexical decision task predict efficiency in the judgment of ambiguous sentences?
title_full_unstemmed Can a lexical decision task predict efficiency in the judgment of ambiguous sentences?
title_sort Can a lexical decision task predict efficiency in the judgment of ambiguous sentences?
author Laurence,Paulo Guirro
author_facet Laurence,Paulo Guirro
Pinto,Tatiana Matheus
Rosa,Alexandre Tadeu Faé
Macedo,Elizeu Coutinho
author_role author
author2 Pinto,Tatiana Matheus
Rosa,Alexandre Tadeu Faé
Macedo,Elizeu Coutinho
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Laurence,Paulo Guirro
Pinto,Tatiana Matheus
Rosa,Alexandre Tadeu Faé
Macedo,Elizeu Coutinho
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Reading
Comprehension
Semantic decision
Eye-tracking
Ambiguity
Regressive saccades
Lexicon
topic Reading
Comprehension
Semantic decision
Eye-tracking
Ambiguity
Regressive saccades
Lexicon
description Abstract The lexicon plays a fundamental role in reading, but little is known about how it influences reading efficiency. Thus, this study seeks to identify which lexical factors in a lexical decision task are relevant in a semantic decision test. A total of 33 university students were recruited to perform a lexical decision task and a semantic decision task. The results revealed differences between the three types of words in the lexical decision task for all measures, but only in the regressive saccades for the semantic decision task. Ambiguous sentences triggered fewer regressions than sentences related to objects. The only lexical measure found to predict efficiency was average time on regular words, which predicted 24% of the efficiency. We discuss the implications of the use of a lexical decision task and the use of the inverse efficiency score as a semantic measure, and we discuss how the lexicon can predict semantic comprehension.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-79722018000105103
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-79722018000105103
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1186/s41155-018-0093-0
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Curso de Pós-Graduação em Psicologia da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Curso de Pós-Graduação em Psicologia da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica v.31 2018
reponame:Psicologia (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Online)
instname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
instacron:UFRGS
instname_str Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
instacron_str UFRGS
institution UFRGS
reponame_str Psicologia (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Online)
collection Psicologia (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Psicologia (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Online) - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv prc@springeropen.com
_version_ 1750134866669731840

Registros relacionados