Current Issue

The Korean Journal of Cognitve & Biological Psychology - Vol. 33 , No. 4

[ Original Article ]
The Korean Journal of Cognitve & Biological Psychology - Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 253-264
Abbreviation: KCBPA
ISSN: 1226-9654 (Print)
Print publication date 30 Oct 2021
Received 22 Mar 2021 Revised 12 Oct 2021 Accepted 18 Oct 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2021.33.4.003

단어-단어 간섭 과제에서 의미 관련 효과
이현진1 ; 이고은2 ; 이혜원1,
1이화여자대학교 심리학과
2국립목포대학교 교양학부

Semantic Relatedness Effects in Word-Word Interference Task
Hyun Jin Lee1 ; Ko Eun Lee2 ; Hye-Won Lee1,
1Department of Psychology, Ewha Womans University
2Division of Liberal Arts, Mokpo National University
Correspondence to : 이혜원, 이화여자대학교 심리학과, (03760) 서울시 서대문구 이화여대길 52, Email: hwlee@ewha.ac.kr


ⓒ The Korean Society for Cognitive and Biological Psychology

초록

본 연구는 단어-단어 간섭 과제를 사용하여 한글 단어 처리에서 의미 관련 효과를 검토하였다. 단어-단어 간섭 과제는 단어들이 인접하여 동시에 제시되는 장면에서 하나를 무시하고 목표로 하는 단어로 주의를 재빨리 옮겨 단어를 재인하는 과제이다. 이 절차를 통해 인접한 방해단어가 표적단어의 읽기에 미치는 영향을 알아볼 수 있다. 실험 1에서는 방해단어를 표적단어와 관련된 조건(관련조건)과 무관한 조건(통제조건)으로 나누어 의미 관련 효과를 조사했다. 실험 결과, 촉진적인 의미 관련 효과를 확인할 수 있었는데, 통제조건에 비해 관련조건에서 표적단어의 명명이 더 빠르고 정확했다. 실험 2에서는 방해단어의 의미관련성을 세분화하여 연상성에서만 관련된 조건(연상조건)과 연상성과 의미성 모두에서 관련된 조건(연상 및 의미조건)으로 나누어 의미 관련 효과를 비교하였다. 실험 결과, 촉진적인 의미 관련 효과는 연상 및 의미조건에서만 나타나고 연상조건에서는 나타나지 않았다. 본 결과는 촉진적 효과가 발생하기 위해서는 의미성과 연상성이 함께 활성화가 이루어져야 하며, 연상성만으로는 효과를 보이기에 역부족일 수 있다는 것을 시사한다.

Abstract

This study investigated the semantic relatedness effect of Korean words in the word-word interference task. In the task, the participant was asked to recognize the target word while ignoring the distractor word, in a scene in which words are adjacent and presented simultaneously. Through this procedure, it is possible to examine the impact of adjacent words on the reading of target words. In Experiment 1, the distractor was either related or unrelated to the target word. We found the facilitative relatedness effect that the naming of the target word was faster and more accurate in the related condition than in the control condition. In Experiment 2, we compared the relatedness effect between when the distractor was related to the target word only associatively (associative condition) and when it was related to the target word both associatively and semantically (associative and semantic condition). We found the facilitative effect only in the associative and semantic condition, but not in the associative condition. These results suggest that both semantics and association must be activated together for the facilitative relatedness effect, and that association alone may be insufficient to show the effect.


Keywords: word-word interference task, semantic relatedness effect, Korean word recognition
키워드: 단어-단어 간섭 과제, 의미 관련 효과, 한국어 단어 재인

References
1. Abdel Rahman, R., & Melinger, A. (2007). When bees hamper the production of honey: lexical interference from associates in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 604-614.
2. Abdel Rahman, R., & Melinger, A. (2009). Semantic context effects in language production: A swinging lexical network proposal and a review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 713-734.
3. Alario, F.-X., Ferrand, L., Laganaro, M., New, B., Frauenfelder, U. H., & Segui, J. (2004). Predictors of picture naming speed. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 140-155.
4. Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407-428.
5. Ferrand, L., & New, B. (2004). Semantic and associative priming in the mental lexicon. In P. Bonin (Ed.), Mental lexicon: Some words to talk about words (pp. 25-43). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publisher.
6. Glaser, W. R., & Glaser, M. O. (1989). Context effects in stroop-like word and picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 13-42.
7. Gweon, H. W., Kim, S. K., & Lee, H. -W. (2006). The relationship between word frequency and semantic priming effects in Hangul word recognition, The Korean Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(3), 203-220.
8. Jarosz, A. F., & Wiley, J. (2014). What are the odds? A practical guide to computing and reporting Bayes factors. Journal of Problem Solving, 7, 1-9.
9. JASP Team (2018). JASP (Version 0.8.5) [Computer software].
10. La Heij, W., Happel, B., & Mulder, M. (1990). Components of stroop-like interference in word reading. Acta Psychologica, 73, 115-129.
11. Lee, H.-W., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1999). The time course of phonological, semantic, and orthographic coding in reading: Evidence from the fast-priming technique. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(4), 624-634.
12. McNamara, T. P. (2005). Semantic priming: Perspectives from memory and word recognition. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
13. Moss, H. E., Ostrin, R. K., Tyler, L. K., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1995). Accessing different types of lexical semantic information: Evidence from priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 863-883.
14. Mulatti, C., Ceccherini, L., & Coltheart, M. (2015). What can we learn about visual attention to multiple words from the word-word interference task? Memory & Cognition, 43, 121-132.
15. Park, T. (2004). Investigation of association frequency and imagery value of Korean words. The Korean Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16(2), 237-260.
16. Perea, M., & Rosa, E. (2002). The effects of associative and semantic priming in the lexical decision task. Psychological Research, 66, 180-194.
17. Postman, L., & Keppel, G. (1970). Norms of word associations. New York: Academic Press.
18. Renoult, L., Wang, X., Mortimer, J., & Debruille, J. B. (2012). Explicit semantic tasks are necessary to study semantic priming effects with high rates of repetition. Clinical Neurophysiology, 123, 741-754.
19. Roelofs, A. (2006). Context effects of pictures and words in naming objects, reading words, and generating simple phrases. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1764-1784.
20. Roelofs, A., Piai, V., & Schriefers, H. (2013). Context effects and selective attention in picture naming and word reading: Competition versus response exclusion. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 655-671.
21. Thompson-Schill, S. L., Kurtz, K. J., & Gabrieli, J. D. (1998). Effects of semantic and associative relatedness on automatic priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 440-458.
22. Treccani, B., & Mulatti, C. (2015). Semantic effects in the word–word interference task: A comment on Roelofs, Piai, and Schriefers (2013). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 700-703.
23. Waechter, S., Besner, D., & Stolz, J. A. (2011). Basic processes in reading: Spatial attention as a necessary preliminary to orthographic and semantic processing. Visual Cognition, 19, 171-202.
24. Yonsei Institute of Language and Information Studies (1998). The word frequency of contemporary Korean. Yonsei university. CLID-WP-98-02-28.