faust lavidor 2003

8/14/2019 faust lavidor 2003

1/13

Cognitive Brain Research 17 (2003) 585597www.elsevier.com/locate/cogbrainres

Research report

Semantically convergent and semantically divergent priming in thecerebral hemispheres: lexical decision and semantic judgment

a , b*Miriam Faust , Michal Lavidora Department of Psychology, Bar- Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel

b Department of Psychology, University of Hull, Hull, UK

Accepted 4 June 2003

Abstract

The effects of semantically divergent and semantically convergent priming on the processing of lexical ambiguity by the two cerebral

hemispheres were examined in two visual hemifield experiments. The experiments investigated the ability of the right hemisphere (RH)

and the left hemisphere (LH) to summate activation from two single word primes followed by a laterally presented ambiguous target

word. In a lexical decision task (experiment 1), the two priming words were either both related to the dominant meaning of the target

(new, freshNOVEL), or to the subordinate meaning (story, bookNOVEL), or to one dominant and one subordinate meaning (new,

storyNOVEL). Results indicated that the LH benefited most from semantically convergent primes that converged onto the dominant

meaning of the ambiguous target word, whereas the RH benefited most from semantically mixed (divergent) primes, that diverge on

alternate meanings of the ambiguous target word. We used the same stimuli in a semantic relatedness judgment task (experiment 2), and

found that the facilitation in the RH was significantly larger when the primes were mixed than when both primes converged on a single

(i.e. either dominant or subordinate) meaning of the to-be-presented target word. In contrast, the only facilitation found in the LH was

when the two primes were associated with a single meaning (either dominant or subordinate) of the to-be-presented target word. When the

primes were mixed, there was no facilitation in the LH. These results support previous findings indicating that during word recognition,

the RH activates a broader range of related meanings than the LH, including alternate meanings of ambiguous words. Thus, by summating

activation for seemingly incongruous elements, the RH may be critically involved in at least one important component of verbal creativity.

2003 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Theme: Neural basis of behavior

Topic: Cognition

Keywords: Hemispheric asymmetry; Visual fields; Multiple priming; Lexical ambiguity

1. Introduction meaning seems to underlie many of its contributions to the

processing of some of the more complex and subtle

As our understanding of the contribution of the right components of language, including humor, metaphors,

hemisphere (RH) to the processing of word meaning sarcasm and certain aspects of discourse processing andgrows, the unique role this hemisphere plays in activating creative problem solving (e.g. [1,6,8,12,14,17,26,29]). One

and maintaining the multiple meanings of ambiguous important implication of the distinct role of the RH in

words is increasingly evident [1,6,15,17,18,2426,28]. lexical ambiguity processing may be the ability to sum-

Word meaning is multifaceted in that most words have mate activation from multiple primes that are related to

multiple semantic features. Words whose multiple semantic different, distinct semantic representations of ambiguous

features diverge onto distinct semantic representations are words. The present study examined this implication.

considered to be ambiguous words [4]. The unique ability Research indicates that the two cerebral hemispheres

of the RH to cope with the multifaceted nature of word differ with regard to the activation and maintenance of the

multiple meanings of words. Whereas subordinate mean-

ings activated by an ambiguous word tend to decay rapidly*Corresponding author. Tel.: 1972-3-5318547; fax: 1972-3-5350267.E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Faust). in the left hemisphere (LH), the RH maintains activation

0926-6410/03/$ see front matter 2003 Published by Elsevier B.V.

doi:10.1016/S0926-6410(03)00172-1
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/13

586 M. Faust, M. Lavidor / Cognitive Brain Research 17 (2003) 585597

of both meanings of the ambiguous word [15]. Burgess and To sum up, the results of semantic priming studies as

Simpson [15] assumed that the early selection of a single, well as data collected from brain damaged patients support

dominant word meaning in the LH was influenced by the the claim that the RH contributes to language processing

relative association strength between the ambiguous words mainly by subserving widespread activation of word

and its alternative meanings. Thus, they hypothesized that meanings, without subsequent selection. The undifferen-

the weakly associated subordinate meaning will be in- tiated activation of alternative, and sometimes contradic-

hibited in the LH whereas in the RH both the strongly tory, interpretations for some indefinite period [15,17,29]

associated dominant and the more remotely associated may have significant implications for the ability of the RH

subordinate meanings will be maintained. to benefit from semantically divergent information.

Divided visual field studies showed that semantic prim- Semantic processing in the LH may consist of initially

ing effects of remotely related words are obtained in the activating all semantic information related to an ambiguous

RH, but not in the LH [20]. According to the RH coarse word, then selecting the dominant or contextually relevant

semantic coding theory [2,9], immediately after encounter- meaning while actively inhibiting the less frequent or

ing a word, the LH engages in relatively fine semantic contextually non-relevant semantic features

coding, strongly focusing activation on a single interpreta- [1,15,25,28,36]. Consequently, the LH should greatly

tion of a word and a few close or contextually appropriate benefit from multiple primes that converge on the domi-

associates, whereas the RH engages in coarse semantic nant meaning of an ambiguous target word, multiply

coding, weakly and diffusely activating alternative mean- activating the same subset of dominant semantic features

ings and more distant associates. Thus, one of the factors (for discussions of the effects of multiple primes, see

that determines hemispheric differences in semantic access [4,23]). However, when multiple primes converge on theand retrieval is the nature of semantic relations between subordinate meaning of an ambiguous word, no priming

words [17]. While the LH strongly activates a relatively should be found in the LH for relatively long SOAs

small semantic field, including only closely related mean- because this hemisphere does not maintain facilitation for

ings and a single interpretation, the RH weakly activates a less frequent meanings of ambiguous words [15]. Further-

much broader range of related meanings, including more, due to the lack of featural similarity between the

peripheral and unusual meanings (e.g. metaphoric interpre- different unrelated meanings of an ambiguous word and to

tations, multiple meanings of ambiguous words, see the active inhibition of alternative meanings [4], the LH

[1,2,15]). should also be relatively unable to benefit from semantical-

Furthermore, the range of meaning activation in the RH ly divergent primes that require the sustained activation of

may not be just wider, but it may also be less discriminant. discrete and separable subsets of semantic features. Thus,

While, in the LH, strongly related meanings are activated while the stronger activation of dominant word meanings

much more than weakly related meanings, in the RH, or semantic features is conducive to most language tasks,activation of close semantic relationships between words is the LH may be at a relative disadvantage when the

maintained to the same extent as is the activation of distant recognition of an ambiguous target word depends on the

relationships. Thus, the RH obtains equal priming from summation of activation from multiple primes that either

high and low dominant category primes [20], from a single converge on the subordinate meaning or diverge onto two

strongly related associate as from a set of three weak different, incompatible meanings of an ambiguous word.

associates [9], from words related via two semantic In contrast, according to RH coarse semantic coding

relations as from words related via only one [21], from model [6,9], the RH diffusely activates and maintains large

contextually relevant as well as from contextually non- semantic fields, containing many distantly related semantic

relevant meanings of ambiguous words [25,27,28] and features and unusual interpretations. The larger, and less

from both the dominant and subordinate meanings of discriminant the semantic field, the more likely it is to

ambiguous words [2,15]. overlap with semantic fields activated by other input

These results suggest that while LH fine semantic words. Thus, in the RH, the constellation of features

coding [9] has a clear advantage for most linguistic instantiated by one meaning of the ambiguous word couldprocesses, RH coarse semantic coding is critical for overlap, at least partly, with that of the other meanings.

mediating those aspects of comprehension that require the Due to the sustained and undifferentiated activation of

simultaneous consideration of more than one plausible alternate, and even incompatible [2], meanings in this

meaning, or the sustained activation of a wide range of hemisphere, the RH should benefit to the same degree from

word meanings. This unique ability of the intact RH could multiple primes that converge on either the dominant or

account for the difficulties that RH damaged persons have subordinate meanings of ambiguous words as well as from

in appreciating jokes, metaphors, connotations, idioms, multiple primes that diverge onto two different, unrelated

sarcasm and indirect requests, which may depend on the meanings of ambiguous words.

continued activation of multiple meanings of words [11 The ability of the RH and the LH to utilize two different

13]. Thus, these patients seem to behave as if their intact concepts that converge on the ambiguous target word from

LH is operating without the semantic support of the different directions was examined in a recent study that

damaged RH [17]. used Hebrew stimuli [26]. The study included two divided


3/13

M. Faust, M. Lavidor / Cognitive Brain Research 17 (2003) 585597 587

visual field priming experiments with relatively long SOAs have on the activation of lexically ambiguous words

of 800 and 2500 ms. The three priming words either presented to the right visual field (RVF)/ LH and the left

converged onto the same semantic representation (i.e. all visual field (LVF) /RH. Although in the earlier study using

three words related to either the dominant or the subordi- Hebrew stimuli, we used three prime words (either three

nate meaning of the target) or diverged onto distinct dominant, three subordinate, two dominant and one

semantic representations (i.e. two words related to the subordinate, or two subordinate and one dominant, or three

dominant and one to the subordinate meaning of the target, unrelated), in the present study we used only two prime

or vice versa). The experimental task in both experiments words (two dominant, two subordinate, one dominant and

was lexical decision. Results were very similar for both one subordinate or two unrelated), we did not expect any

experiments, indicating qualitatively distinct patterns of different pattern of priming. We employed a standard

priming in the two hemispheres. Thus, in the LH, the lexical decision task in experiment 1, and a relatively more

largest priming effects were found for three primes that complex semantic judgment task in experiment 2 [5,33]. In

converged on the dominant meanings of ambiguous target semantic judgment tasks, response must be based on (or

words and facilitation on the other prime combinations can be influenced by) semantic information retrieved from

seemed entirely dependent on the presence of dominant the lexicon [16]. Consequently, these tasks more fully

related words within the priming stimuli. In contrast, in the engage meaning integration processes [23] and can demon-

RH, priming for the two conditions in which primes strate more directly how each hemisphere benefits from

diverged onto two different, incompatible meanings of different prime-target relations.

ambiguous target words was either greater than or similar For the lexical decision task, we predicted that RVF/ LH

to that from the two convergent conditions and facilitation ambiguous target words following multiple primes relateddid not seem to depend on the presence of dominant to the dominant meaning would be facilitated while target

related words in the priming stimuli. These qualitative words following multiple primes related to the other,

differences between the two hemispheres in the pattern of subordinate meaning would not differ from multiple

priming asymmetries occurred both at 800 and at 2500 ms primes that are unrelated to either meaning. Due to the

after prime onset. presence of one prime related to their dominant meaning,

The results of the Faust and Kahanas study [26] point ambiguous target words following semantically divergent

to an important implication of the pattern of meaning multiple primes (dominant1subordinate) would be rela-

activation and maintenance in the RH, the ability to tively facilitated, but facilitation will be smaller than in the

summate activation from several incompatible meanings case of exclusively dominant primes. In contrast, when

without being disrupted by potential semantic conflicts. ambiguous target words are presented to the left visual

This unique propensity of the RH, not explicitly tested field (LVF)/ RH, the divergent primes should have similar

before, could be crucial for the comprehension of linguistic or even larger facilitation than the other prime types,forms that are characterized by several, sometimes con- reflecting the ability of the RH to maintain and to utilize

tradictory, meanings. Furthermore, RH ability to benefit two different concepts that converge on a single ambigu-

from divergent semantic interpretations could interact with ous target word from two different directions. The predic-

characteristics of insight problem solving. Thus, insight tions for experiment 2 are provided following a short

problems tend to contain ambiguous semantic features that discussion of the results of experiment 1.

misdirect retrieval toward information that is strongly

related to the dominant interpretation of words appearing

in the problem, but does not lead to a solution. Whereas the 2. Experiment 1

LH strongly focuses activation on this misdirected in-

formation, to the exclusion of solution-relevant informa- 2.1. Methods

tion, the RH, due to its diffuse and non-selective pattern of

meaning activation, is likely to simultaneously activate and 2.1.1. Design

maintain subordinate, solution-relevantas well as the A 23234 factorial design was employed, all within-dominant, solution-irrelevant information [10]. This unique subject variables. The independent variables were target

capacity of the RH to recognize creative alternatives can lexicality (word, non-word), visual field where the targets

be useful in the context of insight problem solving [29]. were presented (RVF, LVF), and four prime types (associ-

The aim of the present study was to replicate and extend ated with the dominant, subordinate or both meanings of

the results of the Faust and Kahana study, using English the target, or unrelated). The dependent variables were

primes and targets in two different experimental tasks. We response time and percent of correct responses.

used a multiple prime paradigm [4] that allows a de-

termination of the facilitatory effects of two related primes 2.1.2. Participants

compared to the effects of two unrelated primes. The major Thirty-two native English speakers participated. All had

question was what effect two single word primes that normal or corrected to normal vision and were aged 1828

either converge on the dominant or subordinate meaning or (mean age519.7, S.D.51.7). Each participant received

diverge on both dominant and subordinate meanings may either a course credit or 3 for participation. All were


4/13


Table 1right-handed and scored at least 70 on the Edinburgh testMean word length, frequency, and orthographic neighborhood size (N) of[34]. Fourteen were males, 18 females.the target words as a function of the experimental set

Mean length Mean frequency Mean N2.1.3. Stimuli

One hundred and twenty-eight English words and 128 Set 1 5.1 108 8.8Set 2 4.5 117 10.1non-words were used as targets. All the words had at leastSet 3 4.4 132 8.6two different dictionary meanings, one dominant and theSet 4 4.6 120 10.2other subordinate, based on normative ratings of homog-Set 5 5.1 113 9.9

raph meanings [30,37]. These ratings represented the Set 6 4.5 108 11.0degree of association between the homograph and its Set 7 5.1 119 9.2

Set 8 4.7 117 10.5different meanings. The dominant meaning of a word was

defined as the first choice provided by at least 80% of the

normative raters. The 128 non-word targets were created

from a different word pool by changing one or two letters stimulus sets described above around the experimental

of real words, and were matched in length to the word conditions in a Latin Square design. Every target stimulus

targets. All non-words were pronounceable. was presented once in a session, such that there were 256

Each target was associated with four word pairs that trials (128 words and 128 non-word targets) per particip-

served as primes. Examples of priming word pairs for the ant. Twenty-four lateralized lexical decision trials served

target beam are provided following the description of as practice, followed by 36 primed trials of lateralized

each type of prime: lexical decision at the beginning of the experiment.Stimulus presentation was controlled by an IBM Pentium

computer, 586 processor, on 170 SVGA display. The

1. A convergent dominant prime: the two words were participants sat at a viewing distance of 50 cm, with the

related to the dominant meaning of the ambiguous head positioned in a chin rest. The experiment was

target word (ray, light). designed using the Super-Lab experiment generator pro-

2. A convergent subordinate prime: the two words were gram, version 2.

related to the subordinate meaning of the ambiguous The participant placed his/ her right index finger on the

target word (timber, building). middle key of the computer mouse and waited for a

3. A mixed (divergent) dominant1subordinate prime: focusing cross (500 ms duration) which appeared on the

one word was related to the dominant meaning and center of the screen and indicated the onset of a trial.

one word was related to the subordinate meaning of Immediately following the disappearance of the focusing

the ambiguous target word (ray, timber). The order of cross, the priming word pair appeared for 500 ms (pilotthe presentation of the dominant and subordinate testing indicated that the two words could be read and

primes was counterbalanced so that in half the trials, understood within 500 ms). Participants were instructed to

the dominant prime preceded the subordinate prime, read the words silently. The priming word pairs were

while in the other half of the trials, the subordinate presented simultaneously in normal horizontal orientation,

prime preceded the dominant prime. above and below the center of the screen. Next, the

4. An unrelated prime: the two words were completely focusing cross reappeared and remained on the screen for

unrelated to the ambiguous target word (apple, joy). 450 ms, until the end of the target stimulus presentation, to

ensure full fixation. The participant was instructed at the

Following each of the above type of prime, either a beginning of the session to focus on the central 1 and

word target or non-word target was presented for a lexical not to move his/ her eyes while it was present. Three

decision. hundred milliseconds after the appearance of the focusing

The 128-word targets were divided into eight sets, cross (total SOA2800 ms), the target stimulus was pre-

created from the combinations of two visual fields (RVF, sented randomly 28 to the left (LVF) or right (RVF) of theLVF) and four priming conditions, 16 targets in each set. centrally presented 1 for 150 ms. The displayed targets

The final eight sets were matched for target length, subtended, on average, 1.908 of horizontal visual angle

orthographic neighborhood size (taken from Quinlan [35]) (0.78 vertical) at a viewing distance of 50 cm.

and written word frequency [32] of the word-targets. Table The participants were instructed to indicate as rapidly

1 shows the mean word lengths, frequencies and N for and accurately as possible whether the target stimulus was

each set. a word or a non-word by moving their finger from the

middle mouse key to the right or left mouse keys.

2.1.4. Apparatus and procedure Assignment of the keys to word/non-word responses was

Each participant was assigned to one of the eight counterbalanced over participants. The next trial began

versions of the experiment. The different versions counter- when a response was made or, in the case of no response,

balanced the experimental conditions by rotating the eight after 2000 ms from the target onset.


5/13


2.2. Results

Only word targets were analyzed, as the priming con-

ditions were relevant only for words. A 234 repeated

measures analysis of variance with visual field (left/right)

and type of prime (convergent dominant, convergent

subordinate, mixed, unrelated) was performed on accuracy

and RTs of correct responses to target words. Means and

S.D. values of response times and percent of correct

responses for ambiguous target words presented to the

RVF and LVF following the four types of primes are given

in Table 2.

2.2.1. Latency

The main effect of visual field was significant (F 51,31

Fig. 1. RT priming effect for target words presented to the RVF and LVF7.8, P,0.01). Participants responded more quickly to RVFfollowing three types of related primes in a lexical decision task(555 ms) than to LVF (617 ms) target words. In addition, a(experiment 1).main effect of type of prime was obtained for RT (F 5

3,93

14.4, P,0.001). Post hoc analyses (Bonferroni, P,0.05)

revealed that this was due to faster responses to dominant vergent dominant (24 ms) primes (Bonferroni test, P,(566 ms), and dominant1subordinate (565 ms) primes 0.05). Neither the convergent subordinate nor the con-

than to either subordinate (600 ms) or unrelated (617 ms) vergent dominant primes were significantly different from

primes. the unrelated primes for targets presented to the LVF

Of greatest importance, the predicted two-way inter- (Bonferroni .0.05).

action between visual field and type of prime was obtained A similar analysis for RVF targets (F 513.9, P,2,62

for RT (F 510.1, P,0.01). Fig. 1 presents the overall 0.01), revealed that the convergent dominant prime was3,93

priming in RT for target words presented to the RVF and significantly better than the mixed prime (41 ms), which in

the LVF following three types of primes, where the turn was better than the subordinate prime (22 ms)

priming was calculated by contrasting each type of prime (Bonferroni test, P,0.05). In summary, there was no

with the unrelated prime in the two visual fields. significant effect of the convergent subordinate primes in

For target words presented to the RVF/ LH, the con- either visual field, the convergent dominant primes pro-

vergent dominant primes and the mixed primes were duced significantly shorter RTs for target words presentedsignificantly different from the unrelated primes (Bonfer- to the RVF, and the mixed primes produced significantly

roni test, P,0.05). For target words presented to the shorter RTs in both visual fields. A comparison of the

LVF/ RH only the mixed primes were significantly differ- effects of the mixed primes in the RVF and the LVF

ent from the unrelated primes (Bonferroni test, P,0.05). showed no significant difference (Bonferroni test, NS).

As can be clearly seen in Fig. 1, for the RVF/ LH However, the pattern of the priming effect differed for the

presented targets, differences between the unrelated con- two visual fields. For the LVF, the mixed primes produced

dition and the prime conditions were largest for the the greatest reduction in RT (re the unrelated primes);

convergent dominant (74 ms) prime, while for LVF/ RH whereas for the RVF, the convergent dominant primes

targets, the largest prime was found with the mixed prime produced the greatest reduction in RT.

(65 ms) (Bonferroni test, P,0.05). Separate repeated

measures analysis for prime types effects for LVF pre- 2.2.2. Accuracy

sentations only, revealed a main effect (F 512.4, P, A main effect of type of prime was obtained (F 58.6,2,62 3,93

0.01), where the mixed prime was significantly better than P,0.01). Post hoc analyses (Bonferroni, P,0.05) re-either the convergent subordinate (17 ms) or the con- vealed that this was due to more accurate responses to

Table 2

Means and S.D. values for RT and percent correct for target words presented to the RVF and LVF following four different types of primes (experiment 1)

Prime type Dominant Dominant1subordinate (mixed) Subordinate Unrelated

RVF Mean RT 516 549 568 590

(S.D.) (124) (68) (64) (126)

% correct 90 86 82 84

LVF Mean RT 620 579 627 644

(S.D.) (73) (71) (74) (97)

% correct 85 87 82 82


6/13


dominant (88%), and dominant1subordinate (86%) primes the RH, the effects of two different, incompatible repre-

than to either subordinate (82%) or unrelated (83%) sentations of an ambiguous word were overadditive.

primes. Neither visual field nor the interaction were However, for LH presented targets, priming in the mixed

significant for the accuracy measure. condition (41 ms) was smaller than the sum of the

facilitations in the dominant priming condition and the

2.3. Discussion subordinate priming condition (96 ms). This pattern of

results might suggest that inhibition between alternate

The overall pattern of priming uncovered in experiment meanings may only occur in the LH [4,23].

1 indicates that the combinatorial influence of multiple According to Balota and Pauls model of lexical seman-

related primes is different within each hemisphere. When tic processing architecture, inhibition for ambiguous words

the primes converged on the subordinate meaning of the occurs because the build up of activation from the first

ambiguous target word, priming in both hemispheres at a prime at the semantic level for one meaning inhibits the

relatively long SOA of 800 ms did not differ and was build-up of activation from the second prime to the other

non-significant. A number of earlier studies reported both meaning. This pattern was especially evident in a related-

dominant and subordinate priming to target words in the ness judgment task that requires higher level meaning

RH [1,2,15] In the present experiment, we did not find integration processes [4,16,23]. Since the selection of one

significant priming to two convergent subordinate primes meaning of an ambiguous word might be considered a

in either the RH or LH. There may be several reasons for natural consequence of meaning integration, leading to

the discrepancy between the present findings and earlier active inhibition of alternative meanings [4], the goal of

studies. The present paradigm differed from the paradigm experiment 2 was to test whether there is evidence in theused in earlier studies that examined lexical ambiguity LH and the RH for such inhibition by using the same

resolution by the two cerebral hemispheres. In the earlier priming stimuli of experiment 1 but with a different

studies ambiguous words served as primes followed by a experimental task, a semantic judgment task [4,5,33].

target word related to one of the meanings of the prime. In Because participants were explicitly required to process the

the present study, the primes were clear unambiguous meanings of the words in this task, it was expected that

words followed by an ambiguous target word. In addition, this task would be even more sensitive to the distinction

it is possible that the presence of mixed priming conditions between the different semantic representations of words in

led to a different kind of strategy of lexical access in the the two cerebral hemispheres.

RH. These results replicate the results of a previous study Experiment 2 served as a replication of experiment 1

that used a similar summation priming paradigm with an and used the same primes and targets. However, the task

SOA of 800 ms [26]. In the study that used Hebrew employed was different. Rather then deciding whether the

stimuli, we found significant priming in the RVF/LH for primed target is a word (lexical decision), the participantsconvergent dominant primes and no priming for the were asked to explicitly decide whether the target was

subordinate primes in either cerebral hemisphere. related to both priming words preceding it (semantic

In contrast to the RH, the LH gained maximal facilita- relatedness judgment task). We predicted that performance

tion from the convergent dominant prime. The largest for RVF targets would be better when both primes

priming for the RH resulted from the mixed prime, that converged on the dominant meaning of the ambiguous

diverged onto both the dominant and the subordinate target word, than when they either converged on the

representations of the ambiguous target word. Thus, prim- subordinate meaning or diverged on the two alternative

ing in the LH increased when primes were related only to meanings of the target word. However, since the RH seems

the dominant meaning of the target. However, for LVF/RH to be able to utilize two different concepts that converge

presented targets, only semantically mixed multiple primes on a single ambiguous target word without being inhibited

facilitated target recognition. These latter results also by the possible incompatability of the two alternative

replicate the findings of the earlier study that used Hebrew meanings, we predicted that LVF/RH performance in the

words in a similar summation priming paradigm with an mixed prime condition will be similar, or even superior toSOA of 800 ms [26]. In that study, facilitation for multiple that of either the convergent dominant or convergent

mixed primes in the LH seemed to be entirely dependent subordinate priming conditions.

on the presence of dominant primes within the priming

stimulus. In contrast, in the LVF/RH, only semantically

mixed multiple primes facilitated target recognition sig- 3. Experiment 2

nificantly. Thus, the results of the two studies are virtually

identical. 3.1. Methods

Furthermore, in the present study, RH facilitation in the

mixed priming condition (65 ms) was greater than the sum 3.1.1. Design

of the facilitations in the dominant priming condition and Half of the targets were related to the primes, and half

the subordinate priming condition (41 ms total). Thus, in were not. A 33232 factorial design was employed, all


7/13


within-subjects variables, where the independent variables visual fields (RVF, LVF), and three priming conditions, 16

were: three prime types (convergent dominant, convergent targets in each set.

subordinate, mixed); two visual fields of presentation of

the target stimulus (RVF, LVF), and two classes of target 3.1.4. Apparatus and procedure

stimuli (related and unrelated). The dependent variables In contrast to experiment 1, the stimulus to which the

were response time and percent of correct responses. participant responded was always a word. The procedure

was identical to that of experiment 1, with the exception

3.1.2. Participants that participants task was to decide whether the briefly

Thirty-two native English speakers participated. All had presented target word was associated with both of the

normal or corrected to normal vision and were aged 1832 immediately preceding primes (that could be read and

(mean age519.9, S.D.51.9). Each participant received understood comfortably at a presentation duration of 500

either a course credit or 3 for participation. All were ms). The participants were instructed to indicate as rapidly

right-handed and scored at least 70 on the Edinburgh test and accurately as possible whether the target word was

[34]. Thirteen were males, 19 females. None of them related to both primes or not by moving their finger from

participated in experiment 1. the middle mouse key to the right or left mouse keys.

Assignment of the keys to related/unrelated responses was

3.1.3. Stimuli counterbalanced over participants.

We used 96 words taken from the 128 word pool of

experiment 1 as the related group, with 96 additional 3.2. Results

words, matched in length and frequency, that served as theunrelated words (they were the source for the non-word A 33232 repeated measures analysis of variance with

stimuli used in experiment 1). Every target was associated type of prime (dominant, subordinate, dominant1

with three word pairs that served as primes. The related subordinate,), visual field (left/ right) and class of target

words were associated with either the dominant, the word (related or unrelated) was performed on accuracy and

subordinate or with both dominant and subordinate primes correct RTs for target words. All the results are summa-

as in experiment 1. Each of the unrelated words were rized in Table 3.

also paired with three pairs of prime words, however, they

were not semantically related to the targets (we used the 3.2.1. Latency

same primes used for the non-word stimuli in experiment The main effect of visual field was significant (F 51,31

1). 6.3, P,0.01). Participants responded more quickly to RVF

Since we used six out of the eight matched word lists of (691 ms) than to LVF (736 ms) target words. The main

experiment 1, the final six sets used in experiment 2 were effect of relatedness was also significant (F5

8.2, P,

1,31also matched for target length, orthographic neighborhood 0.01). Participants responded more quickly to related (675

size and written word frequency of the word-targets (see ms) than to unrelated (752 ms) target words.

Table 1). We needed six lists for the combinations of two Of greatest importance is the three-way significant

Table 3

Means and S.D. values for RT and percent correct for related and unrelated target words presented to the RVF and LVF following three different types of

primes (experiment 2)

Prime type Dominant Dominant1subordinate Subordinate

(mixed)

RVF

Related target Mean RT 610 732 621

(S.D.) (73) (97) (66)

% correct 90 91 90RVF unrelated target

Mean RT 718 730 740

(S.D.) (71) (82) (75)

% correct 95 92 87

LVF related target

Mean RT 716 667 704

(S.D.) (103) (81) (92)

% correct 93 88 93

LVF unrelated target

Mean RT 778 790 760

(S.D.) (85) (117) (93)

% correct 89 90 91

Reaction time (ms).


8/13


3.2.3. Latency

The main effect of visual field was significant (F 51,31

6.6, P,0.01). Participants responded more quickly to RVF

(654 ms) than to LVF (695 ms) target words. In addition,

the predicted two-way interaction between visual field and

type of prime was obtained for RT (F 514.6, P,0.01).3,93

For the RVF/LH presented targets, the fastest responses

were obtained for dominant (610 ms) and subordinate

primes (mean5621 ms), while for LVF/RH targets, the

fastest responses were for the divergent prime condition

(667 ms). Separate repeated measures analysis for prime

types effects for LVF presentations only, revealed a main

effect (F 59.9, P,0.01). Responses to target words2,62

following the divergent prime were significantly betterFig. 2. RT priming effect for target words presented to RVF and LVFfollowing three types of primes in a semantic relatedness judgment task than to target words following either the convergent(experiment 2). subordinate (704 ms) or the convergent dominant (716 ms)

primes. A similar analysis for RVF targets (F 521.9,2,62

interaction between type of prime, visual field and target P,0.01), revealed that responses to target word following

word class (F 57.3, P,0.01). Fig. 2 shows the differ- divergent primes (732 ms) were significantly slower than2,62

ence between RT to a related and an unrelated target word responses to target words following the two types ofpresented after each of the three types of primes for the convergent primes. The post hoc comparisons employed

two visual fields. A 233 repeated measures analysis for the Bonferroni test (P,0.05).

the priming effects yielded a significant interaction be-

tween visual field and prime type (when subtracting the 3.2.4. Accuracy

related from the unrelated responses) (F 59.4, P,0.01). There were no significant differences between the2,62

For the RVF, the difference between the RT to a related experimental conditions in the accuracy measure, which

and unrelated prime is 108 and 119 ms for the convergent was about 91% of all cases.

dominant and subordinate primes, respectively. Post hoc

comparisons (Bonferroni test, P,0.05) showed both prime 3.3. Discussion

conditions were significant. However, for the mixed prime

condition, i.e. one dominant and one subordinate prime, In natural language processing, attention is typically

there is no significant difference in RT to a related and directed to meaning-level integration processes. Conse-unrelated target (22 ms). In contrast, the pattern for LVF quently, in experiment 2 we attempted to direct the

presented target words is quite different. The difference participants attention to meaning level representations by

between RT to related and unrelated target words pre- changing the task to a relatedness judgment task. The

sented to the LVF following two dominant or two subordi- purpose of this experiment was to test directly the ability

nate primes is 62 and 56 ms, respectively. Whereas the of each of the two hemispheres to simultaneously maintain

difference between RT to related and unrelated target and use two different priming concepts that converge on a

words following the mixed prime condition, i.e. one to-be-presented ambiguous target word. We used the same

dominant and one subordinate prime, is 123 ms. Post hoc primes and targets of the first experiment, in a semantic

comparisons (Bonferroni test, P,0.05) showed that for relatedness judgment task. The design created a condition

LVF word target presentation, all prime conditions were whereby the participant could use either one concept

significant. suggested by two converging primes or two concepts

suggested by two diverging primes to facilitate the recog-

nition of a to-be-presented ambiguous target word. The3.2.2. Accuracy concepts were either: (1) related to the dominant meaning;

There were no significant differences between the (2) related to the subordinate meaning; or (3) related to

experimental conditions in the accuracy measure, which both the dominant and subordinate meanings of the to-be-

was about 91% of all cases. presented target word. The question we raised was: do the

The data were also analyzed without using the unrelated two hemispheres use conceptual associations to prime

primes as a baseline. A 233 repeated measures analysis of target words or alternatively integrate the meanings of the

variance with visual field (left / right) and type of word pair initial word-pair and the target word in the same way? The

(dominant, dominant1subordinate, subordinate) was per- data were analyzed in two ways: (1) by using the unrelated

formed on accuracy and correct RTs for target words (see prime words as a baseline similar to that in experiment 1;

Table 3 for RT and accuracy means and S.D. values of (2) by directly comparing the RT and accuracy for the

related targets). related word-pairs only presented to either the RVF or


9/13


LVF. Based on the results of experiment 1 we suggested early in processing (although the RH may be slower).

that the two hemispheres would use meanings to prime However, at longer time intervals, the LH selectively

target words (analysis 1), or to integrate the meaning of the maintains dominant and literal meanings of ambiguous

initial word pair and target (analysis 2) differently. In both words, whereas the RH continues to maintain the multiple

analyses, our predictions were generally supported: when meanings activated by an ambiguous word, including

the primes (word-pairs) were related to a single meaning of subordinate and metaphorical meanings (e.g. [1,15,24

the target (either dominant or subordinate), there was clear 26]). The major question addressed by the present study

facilitation (shorter RT) for RVF presented target words. was whether this prolonged, undifferentiated, activation of

RVF/ LH performance was improved by over 100 ms to alternative meanings of ambiguous words in the RH has

both types of convergent primes. However, when the implications for its ability to benefit from semantically

primes were mixed, i.e. related to two different meanings divergent primes, that converge onto an ambiguous target

of the to-be-presented target words, there was no facilita- word from two different conceptual directions. Since the

tion at all (22 ms). These results suggest some type of main differences between the two hemispheres in process-

inhibition in the LH between the two different meanings ing word meanings appear to emerge relatively late, the

generated by the primes for the to-be-presented target critical observations are those in which the time interval is

word. long. Thus, the present study used a relatively long SOA of

However, the pattern of LVF/ RH performance was quite 800 ms, which is identical to the SOA in the previous

different. For LVF/ RH presented target words, there was study that used a similar paradigm with Hebrew stimuli

an approximately 60-ms facilitation for each of the two [26].

types of convergent primes. In complete contrast to the The experimental paradigm of the present study com-RVF/LH mixed prime condition, when the target words bined multiple priming with either lexical decision (experi-

were presented to the LVF/RH following the mixed prime ment 1) or semantic relatedness judgment (experiment 2)

condition, the facilitation was approximately double that of to laterally presented ambiguous target words. The priming

each of the two convergent prime conditions (123 ms). in the present experiments differed from some earlier

Thus when the two primes were related to different laterality studies (e.g. [1,15]) in the directionality of prime-

meanings of the to-be-presented target word, the RH target relations, i.e. two words either related to the same

seemed to be able to add the priming effects of two concept or to two different concepts (mixed) were used to

different meanings advantageously. In fact, an absolute prime ambiguous target words. Therefore, the two primes

LVF advantage in RT was found for the divergent priming either expressed a single dominant meaning of the to-be-

condition. Although this is an unusual and striking result, it presented ambiguous target words, or expressed a single

is not unprecedented. When the performance of a linguistic subordinate meaning, or were mixed, i.e. expressed two

task depends on the very sustained activation of distant, different concepts of distinct, unrelated meaning thatunusual relations, RH superiority is sometimes obtained in converge onto the to-be-presented ambiguous target word.

response time [7,10] and in response accuracy [29]. Such Some authors have referred to this type of priming as

findings are often associated with priming in paradigms of backward priming [22,31]. Thus, due to the directionality

very long SOAs or when the task involves problem solving of prime-target relations, the subordinate vs. dominant

[10]. The previous study that used a very similar summa- dimension could be used in relation to the primes meaning

tion priming paradigm with Hebrew stimuli, also reported more than to the targets meaning and the effects of

an absolute superiority of the RH for both RT and priming could be attributed to backward priming, i.e. to the

accuracy [26]. These results suggest that the RH can be association from the target to the preceding prime. Never-

actively involved in the processing of concepts that theless, there still remains the problem of meaning direc-

inferentially connect distantly related associations, a pro- tionality. The determination of meaning dominance was

cess that may be critical for creative problem solving. This based on judgments by subjects who were presented with

issue will be discussed further below. the target words rather than the primes. However, in the

experiment subjects were presented with the primes andthen exposed to laterally presented targets. All the materi-

4. General discussion als used in both experiments are presented in Appendix A

for the perusal of the reader.

The two cerebral hemispheres are thought to play The convergentdivergent multiple priming paradigm

complementary roles in the processing of the different served explicitly to test the idea that the LH strongly

meanings of ambiguous words. Previous research has focuses activation on a single, dominant interpretation of

shown that meaning predominance and the time course of ambiguous words whereas the RH uniquely contributes to

meaning activation and selection have different effects on language processing by being sensitive to overlapping

the processing of lexical ambiguity by the two cerebral activation from discrete, separable and sometimes incom-

hemispheres. Specifically, these studies suggest that both patible representations of ambiguous words [3,6,26]. Since

hemispheres tend to activate a wide set of word meanings in natural language processing there appear to be multiple


10/13


sources of information that might constrain the meaning of the ambiguous target as dominant and subordinate mean-

a word in a given context [4], it is important to understand ings. The LH seems to excel mainly when the two primes

how multiple sources of information influence target reinforce the primed concept (target) from the same

processing in the two cerebral hemispheres. direction, whereas the RH excels when the two primes

The results of both experiments were generally similar converge on the primed concept ( target) from different

with regard to response latency, indicating qualitatively directions. In effect, the mixed condition, i.e. one domi-

distinct patterns of semantic processing in the two hemi- nant-concept prime and one subordinate-concept prime

spheres, including crossover interactions. represents the condition when two meanings of a word are

completely unrelated, and the two meanings may only

overlap because each concept is associated with the target4.1. RVF/LH pattern

word. The results indicate that the RH seems to be more

sensitive to this very specific kind of meaning overlap thanIn experiment 1, the largest priming effects for the

the LH.RVF/ LH target words were found for two primes that

The finding that two different associations can prime theconverged on the dominant meanings of ambiguous target

same target word, but different meanings of that word,words. The mixed (divergent) priming stimulus that con-

better in the RH than in the LH may be explained intained one dominant prime and one subordinate prime was

several ways. It is possible that only the RH has word-levelalso facilitated, but facilitation was significantly smaller

representations such that both primes in the mixed con-than in the case of exclusively dominant primes. In

dition prime that representation, whereas in the LH distinctexperiment 2, for the RVF/LH the largest facilitation was

representations exist for the two meanings so that thefound for target words following two primes whoseactivation of the two does not summate [4]. Alternatively,

meanings converged either on the dominant or on theeach one of the mixed primes prime features of the

subordinate meaning of the ambiguous target words.to-be-presented target word. In the LH, smaller semantic

However, when the two primes were mixed and expressedfields only allow simultaneous activation of one meaning

different concepts that converged from two differentor the other to coexist with the target. However, in the RH,

directions onto a target word presented to the RVF, therethe semantic fields are wider and can encompass both of

was no effect of priming at all and the response speed wasthe conceptual features and the target [6,9]. An additional

equivalent to that of a completely unrelated target wordexplanation is that the present study is actually a mediated

following those primes. It should be noted that althoughpriming study, where participants see the two end points

the pattern of priming in the LH was generally similar forand then make responses to the mediating concept. Ac-

both experiments, there was significant priming for thecording to this explanation, the RH might be especially

subordinate convergent primes only in experiment 2. Thus,

sensitive to this kind of priming [17]. Whatever explana-when attention is explicitly directed to semantic process- tion is suggested, we must keep in mind that the procedureing, the LH seems to be able to use the semantic relations

differs from the classical priming paradigm in the direc-between an ambiguous word and its subordinate meaning.

tionality of primetarget relations. Therefore, it is possible

that the finding of different priming patterns in the two

4.2. LVF/RH pattern cerebral hemispheres is limited to this type of paradigm,

where two primes representing either the same or different

In experiment 1, for target words presented to the concepts precede an ambiguous target word.

LVF/ RH, significant priming effects were found only for The results of experiment 2 are fairly dramatic when one

two mixed primes. In experiment 2, although there were compares the semantic relatedness judgment to a target

significant priming effects when the primes expressed the word presented to the RVF/ LH and LVF/ RH following

same dominant or subordinant concepts that converged on the mixed primes. When the target word was presented to

the to-be-presented ambiguous target word, the largest the RVF/ LH following two primes that expressed the same

effects were found in the mixed priming condition, i.e. (either dominant or subordinate) concept the effect was towhen the target words followed two priming words that reduce RT by between 108 and 119 ms. When the target

expressed two different conceptual meanings that con- word followed two mixed primes, i.e. they expressed two

verged onto the target word from two different directions. different concepts, there was no reduction of RT at all. In

Thus, two different priming patterns are seen in the two complete contrast, when the target word was presented to

cerebral hemispheres. The LH seems to benefit mainly the LVF/ RH following two primes that expressed the same

when the two priming words reinforce each other, i.e. they (either dominant or subordinate) concept the effect was to

converge on the same conceptual meaning of the ambigu- reduce RT by between 56 and 62 ms. When the target word

ous target word, particularly when that meaning is the followed two mixed primes, i.e. they expressed two

dominant one. In contrast, the RH seems to benefit mainly different concepts, there was a reduction of 123 ms in RT,

when the two primes do not reinforce the same concept, more than double the reduction found when the primes had

but rather reflect two different concepts that converge on expressed the same concept.


11/13


Since access to multiple, including non-dominant, inter- 1) or when the priming effects for the convergent con-

pretations of ambiguous words can readily lead to confu- ditions were much smaller than that for the mixed priming

sion in most linguistic contexts, there can be great adaptive condition (experiment 2).

value to inhibiting incompatible meanings. There is grow- To sum up, the findings of the present study suggest that

ing evidence that inhibition may play a critical role in RH ability to utilize two different incompatible concepts

differential semantic priming between the two hemi- has implications for its ability to benefit from semantically

spheres. Several studies suggest that the RH tendency to be mixed primes, that diverge onto alternate meanings of

more primed by distant associates relative to the LH can be ambiguous target words. The continued activation of more

attributed to greater inhibition of non-dominant interpreta- diffuse, less selective information in the RH as well as its

tions in the LH [1,15,16]. With longer SOAs, such as the ability to summate activation from multiple weakly related

SOA of 800 ms used in the present study, priming would primes may serve specific linguistic functions. Thus,

involve strategic processing and consequently might in- maintaining simultaneous activation for alternate word

volve inhibition of alternative word meanings mainly in meanings could be essential in cases where the ability to

the LH. recognize alternative interpretations of problem elements

Since no mixed priming effects were found in the LH, represents a critical component, e.g. in insight problem

the present studys findings indicate that the LH cannot solving.

summate activation from two different, incompatible Yaniv and Meyer [38] proposed that the creative

meanings of an ambiguous word even when each meaning solution to a problem may involve retrieving and inte-

by itself is highly activated (experiment 2). With regard to grating diverse bits of information through remote associa-

the RH, the large priming effects of semantically mixed tions in long term memory (p. 189). They suggest thatprimes found in the present study suggest that this hemi- spreading activation induced by priming of relevant

sphere possesses a unique ability to utilize alternative semantic memories is an important first step in problem

interpretations of ambiguous words. These results are solving by making a person more sensitive to other

consistent with the view that the RH mainly contributes to information relevant to solving the problem at hand.

the resolution of lexical ambiguity by retrieving alternate Similarly, Bowden and Beeman [10] suggest that RHs

and semantically unrelated interpretations from memory ability to maintain broader semantic activation over time

and simultaneously evaluating their current appropriateness facilitates the solving of problems that depend on remote

[15,17,26], a process which can be especially burdensome associations for their solution. Finally, Fiore and Schooler

[39]. [29] point to a number of striking parallels between the

Furthermore, if, as we have shown, the RH is able to properties of insight problem solving and the cognitive

relate simultaneously to both meanings of an ambiguous characteristics of the RH that include access to alternative

word without inhibiting alternate interpretations, this could interpretations. Thus, they argue that although clearly at apoint to a special role of this hemisphere in summating disadvantage in general language processing skills, the RH

activation from different, incompatible word meanings. nevertheless appears to contribute to critical processes

Beeman [6,9] has shown that when a target word is primed involved in insight problem solving. Specifically, it ap-

by the summed activation across several weakly related pears that the RH may have unique abilities to avoid the

single word primes, the RH is much more sensitive than inhibitory processes that promote fixedness and that reduce

the LH to such weak lexical semantic relations and thus access to non-dominant interpretation.

shows greater summation priming. The broader semantic The findings of the present study may point to an

fields activated and maintained by the RH might also be important implication of RH propensity to activate and

better able to capture certain types of semantic relations, maintain many potential word meanings: the ability to

those that depend on the overlap of distantly related converge on a target word from different, including

meanings such as the alternate meanings of an ambiguous incompatible, word meanings without being disrupted by

word. Thus, in the RH, the constellation of semantic seemingly semantic conflicts. Future research should look

features instantiated by one meaning of the ambiguous further at the implications of the different patterns in thetarget word could overlap, at least partly, with that of the two cerebral hemispheres for the processing of linguistic

other meanings. Due to the sustained and undifferentiated forms that are characterized by several, sometimes unre-

activation of alternate, and even incompatible, meanings of lated, meanings. Specifically, the sustained availability of

ambiguous words, the RH can utilize multiple primes that seemingly incongruous elements in the RH may be critical

diverge onto two different meanings and, consequently, for insight problem solving. The convergentdivergent

show large mixed priming effects. This unique ability of summation priming paradigm used in the present study is

the RH to summate activation from distant semantic recommended as a promising method of exploring the

associates could explain the large priming effects found in neuropsychological processes involved in verbal creativity,

the present study for divergent primes even when each as well as the relationship between patterns of hemispheric

single meaning representation, either subordinate or domi- activation for multiple convergent and divergent priming

nant, did not reach significant priming effects (experiment and individual differences in creativity.


12/13


powerstrengthperhapsmaybeMIGHTAppendix A. Stimuli listgoldcoalpropertybelongMINE

cup assault attack containerMUGNET web fish profit earn

Target Dominant Dominant Subordinate Subordinate NOVEL new fresh book story1 2 1 2 ODD unusual strange even number

ORGAN music sound body anatomyADMIT acknowledge greet allow accept

PAGE sheet book messenger contactANNUAL yearly 12-monthly yearbook almanac

PEER equal colleague gaze stareARTICLE paper clause item objectPELT fur skin bombard fire

BANK money teller river waterPEN write marker enclosure cage

BAR pub inn pole stick PERFECT ideal great improve sharpen

BEAM ray light timber buildingPERMIT licence visa allow let

BEAR suffer stand forest honeyPIT hole ditch mine coal

BIT piece slice bridle angryPLANE airplane sky flat surface

BLUNT dull boring round curvedPLOT plan scheme area land

BOIL bubble heat sore ulcerPRESENT gift grant introduce commence

BOWL basin container game ballPRUNE reduce cut fruit juice

CABINET dresser cupboard council congressPUPIL student school eye look

CAN able capable container tinRACKET tennis game noise din

CAPITAL major centre assets propertyRASH spots skin hasty impulsive

CHANGE coins money alter modifyREFUSE reject decline waste litter

CHARGE price cost attack rushRING circle round sound bell

CHECK bill invoice ensure verify

ROCK stone pebble swing shakeCLUB association society stick weaponROOT plant tree dig search

COMPACT compressed dense deal contractROSE flower smell mount climb

COUNT enumarate number noble aristocratSAGE wise thinker plant tree

CRANE lift winch bird featherSAW look eye cut tool

CUE signal hint pool ballSEASON winter summer flavour spice

CURB restrain control appetite impulseSECOND minute time order first

DART whiz zoom arrow targetSENTENCE words grammar penalty verdict

DEED action feat title charterSHED hut tools discard drop

DESERT camel wasteland abandon discardSHIFT change move period turn

DIGEST magazine diary eat foodSOLE shoe foot only single

DRY waterless dry dull drearySPRING summer winter water stream

DUCK goose quack dodge avoid

EXPRESS rapid transport articulate state

FAIR market trade pale light

FANCY elegant posh imagine guess

ReferencesFAST quick speed starve foodFELT experience emotion texture touch

FENCE barrier enclosure sport game [1] D. Anaki, M. Faust, S. Kravetz, Cerebral hemispheric asymmetries

FIGURE shape outline number symbol in processing lexical metaphors, Neuropsychologia 36 (1998) 353

FLAT smooth glassy apartment house 362.

FLY air plane run escape [2] R.A. Atchley, C. Burgess, M. Keeney, The Effect of time course and

FOIL aluminium kitchen frustrate thwart context on the facilitation of semantic features in the cerebral

FRESH new clean original innovative hemispheres, Neuropsychology 13 (1999) 1 15.

GRATE grill grid annoy irritate [3] R.A. Atchley, M. Keeney, C. Burgess, Cerebral hemispheric mecha-

GRAVE tomb funeral serious severe nisms linking ambiguous word meaning retrieval and creativity,

GROSS discusting vulgar total sum Brain Cogn. 40 (1999) 479499.

GROUND earth land crushed minced [4] D.A. Balota, S.T. Paul, Summation of activation: Evidence from

HAMPER basket creel hinder obstruct multiple primes that converge and diverge within semantic memory,

HEAD skull body leader chief J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 22 (1996) 827845.

HIDE conceal seek skin fur [5] S.E. Barrett, M.D. Rugg, Event-related potentials and the semantic

HOLD clutch grasp sustain wait matching of pictures, Brain Cogn. 14 (1990) 201212.

HOST guest visitor crowd mass [6] M.J. Beeman, Coarse semantic coding and discourse comprehen-

INTEREST attention notice profit loan sion, in: M.J. Beeman, C. Chiarello (Eds.), Right Hemisphere

INVALID unsound untrue handicap sick Language Comprehension: Perspectives from Cognitive Neuro-

JAM jelly toast traffic congestion science, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1998, pp. 255284.

KIND type sort gentle considerate [7] M.J. Beeman, E.M. Bowden, The right hemisphere maintains

LETTER envelope send alphabet word solution-related activation for yet-to-be-solved problems, Memory

LIGHT glow beam easy simple Cogn. 28 (2000) 12311241.

LIKE love fond similar comparable [8] M.J. Beeman, C. Chiarello (Eds.), Right Hemisphere Language

LIMP lame hobble floppy bendy Comprehension: Perspectives from Cognitive Neuroscience, Er-

LOAF bread piece idle mooch lbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1998.

LOUNGE salon lobby laze recline [9] M.J. Beeman, R. Friedman, J. Grafman, E. Perez, S. Diamond, M.

MAD angry rage insane crazy Lindsay, Summation priming and coarse semantic coding in the

MEAL food supper grain speck right hemisphere, J. Cogn. Neurosci. 6 (1994) 2643.


13/13


[10] E.M. Bowden, M.J. Beeman, Getting the right idea: Semantic [24] J. Coney, K.D. Evans, Hemispheric asymmetries in the resolution of

activation in the right hemisphere may help solve insight problems, lexical ambiguity, Neuropsychologia 38 (2000) 272282.

Psychol. Sci. 9 (1998) 435440. [25] M. Faust, C. Chiarello, Sentence context and lexical ambiguity

[11] H.H. Brownell, H. Gardner, Neuropsychological insights into resolution by the two hemispheres, Neuropsychologia 36 (1998)

humor, in: J. Durant, J. Miller (Eds.), Laughing Matters: A Serious 827836.

Look at Humor, Longman, Harlow, UK, 1988. [26] M. Faust, A. Kahana, Priming summation in the cerebral hemi-[12] H.H. Brownell, G. Martino, Deficits in inference and social cogni- spheres: evidence from semantically convergent and semantically

tion: The effects of right hemisphere brain damage on discourse, in: divergent primes, Neuropsychologia 40 (2002) 892901.

M.J. Beeman, C. Chiarello (Eds.), Right Hemisphere Language [27] M. Faust, S. Kravetz, E. Netzer, Effects of sentential context on theComprehension: Perspectives from Cognitive Neuroscience, Er- processing of unambiguous words by the two cerebral hemispheres,lbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1998, pp. 309328. Brain Lang. 80 (2002) 438448.

[13] H.H. Brownell, T.L. Simpson, A.M. Bihrle, H.H. Potter, H. Gardner, [28] M.E. Faust, M.A. Gernsbacher, Cerebral mechanisms for suppres-Appreciation of metaphoric alternative word meanings by left and sion of inappropriate information during sentence comprehension,right brain damaged patients, Neuropsychologia 28 (1990) 375383. Brain Lang. 53 (1996) 234259.

[14] C. Burgess, C. Chiarello, Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying [29] S.M. Fiore, J.W. Schooler, Right hemisphere contributions tometaphor comprehension and other figurative language, Metaphor creative problem solving: Converging evidence for divergent think-Symbolic Activity 11 (1996) 6784. ing, in: M.J. Beeman, C. Chiarello (Eds.), Right Hemisphere

[15] C. Burgess, G. Simpson, Cerebral hemispheric mechanisms in the Language Comprehension: Perspectives from Cognitive Neuro-retrieval of ambiguous word meanings, Brain Lang. 33 (1988) science, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1998, pp. 349372.86103. [30] M.F. Geis, E. Winograd, Norms of semantic encoding variability for

[16] C. Chiarello, Lateralization of lexical processes in the normal brain: fifty homographs, Bull. Psychonomic Soc. 3 (1974) 429431.A review of visual half-field research, in: H.A. Whitaker (Ed.), [31] A. Koriat, Semantic facilitation in lexical decision as a function ofContemporary Reviews in Neuropsychology, Springer-Verlag, New prime-target association, Memory Cogn. 9 (1981) 587598.

York, 1988. [32] H. Kucera, W.N. Francis, Computational Analysis of Present Day[17] C. Chiarello, Interpretation of word meanings in the cerebral American English, Brown University Press, Providence, RI, 1967.

hemispheres: One is not enough, in: P.J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The [33] W.B. McPherson, P.J. Holcomb, An electrophysiological investiga-Psychology of Word Meanings, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1991, pp. tion of semantic priming with pictures of real objects, Psycho-251275. physiology 36 (1999) 5365.

[18] C. Chiarello, On codes of meaning and the meaning of codes: [34] D.J. Oldfield, The assessment of handedness: The EdinburghSemantic access and retrieval within and between hemispheres, in: Inventory, Neuropsychologia 9 (1971) 97113.M.J. Beeman, C. Chiarello (Eds.), Right Hemisphere Language [35] P. Quinlan, MRC Psycholinguistic Database for the Apple Macin-Comprehension: Perspectives from Cognitive Neuroscience, Er- tosh, 1993.lbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1998, pp. 141160. [36] D. Titone, Hemispheric differences in context sensitivity during

[20] C. Chiarello, L. Richards, Another look at categorical priming in the lexical ambiguity resolution, Brain Lang. 65 (1998) 361394.cerebral hemispheres, Neuropsychologia 30 (1992) 381392. [37] K.A. Woolen, S.D. Cox, M.M. Coahran, D.S. Shea, R.F. Kirby,

[21] C. Chiarello, L. Richards, A. Pollock, Semantic additivity and Frequency of occurrence and concreteness ratings of homographsemantic inhibition: Dissociable processes in the cerebral hemi- meanings, Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. 12 (1980) 815.spheres?, Brain Lang. 42 (1992) 5276. [38] I. Yaniv, D.E. Meyer, Activation and metacognition of inaccessible

[22] D.J. Chwilla, P. Hagoort, C.M. Brown, The mechanism under;ying stored information: Potential bases for incubation effects in problembackward priming in a lexical decision task: Spreading activation solving, J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 13 (1987) 187205.versus semantic matching, Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 51 (A) (1998) [39] D.W. Zaidel, E. Zaidel, S.M. Oxbury, J.M. Oxbury, The interpreta-531560.

tion of sentence ambiguity in patients with unilateral focal brain[23] D.J. Chwilla, H.H.J. Kolk, ERP and RT evidence for inhibition surgery, Brain Lang. 51 (1995) 458468.

between alternative meanings of ambiguous words, Poster presented

at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, 1999.

Documents

faust lavidor 2003