Cover not available
Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 15:2 (2020) ► pp.258–294

Is inhibition involved in the processing of opaque compound words?

A study of individual differences

| University of Alberta, Canada
| University of Alberta, Canada
| University of Alberta, Canada
| University of Alberta, Canada
We examined whether inhibition skills were recruited during the processing of compound words. Using an individual differences perspective, we analyzed whether participants’ scores on the Stroop test predicted performance on lexical decision tasks involving compound words varying in their level of semantic opacity. The results show that inhibition is involved in the comprehension of fully opaque (e.g., hogwash) and fully transparent (e.g., blueberry) compound words, but we found no evidence for such an effect in the comprehension of partially opaque compound words (e.g., strawberry, jailbird).
Keywords: compound words, opaque, inhibition, individual differences, semantic transparency
Article outline
  • Experiment 1
    • Methods
      • Materials
        • Lexical decision task
        • Inhibition task
      • Procedure
        • Lexical decision task
        • Inhibition task
      • Participants
    • Results and discussion
      • Lexical decision task
      • Inhibition task
      • Lexical decision and inhibition task
        • Inhibition scores and reaction times on the lexical decision task
        • Inhibition ratio and reaction times on the lexical decision task
  • Experiment 2
    • Methods
      • Materials
        • Lexical decision task
        • Inhibition task
      • Procedure
      • Participants
    • Results and discussion
      • Lexical decision task
      • Inhibition task
      • Lexical decision and inhibition task
        • Inhibition scores and reaction times on the lexical decision task
        • Inhibition ratio and reaction times on the lexical decision task
  • Comparing Experiment 1 and Experiment 2
  • General discussion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.19011.par
References (41)
References
Benedek, M., Franz, F., Heene, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2012). Differential effects of cognitive inhibition and intelligence on creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(4), 480–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bjorklund, D. F., & Harnishfeger, K. K. (1990). The resources construct in cognitive development: Diverse sources of evidence and a theory of inefficient inhibition. Developmental Review, 10(1), 48–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bisiach, E., Mini, M., Sterzi, R., & Vallar, G. (1982). Hemispheric lateralization of the decisional stage in choice reaction times to visual unstructured stimuli. Cortex, 18(2), 191–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brooks, T. L., & Cid de Garcia, D. (2015). Evidence for morphological composition in compound words using MEG. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 91:215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kuçera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., & Toth, J. P. (2008). Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task. Memory & Cognition, 36(8), 1484–1494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durgin, F. H. (2000). The reverse Stroop effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(1), 121–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
El-Bialy, Rowan, Gagné, C. L. & Spalding, T. L. (2013). Processing of English compounds is sensitive to the constituents’ semantic transparency. The Mental Lexicon 81. 75–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engle, Kane & Tuholski. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In Miyake, A. & Shah, P. (Eds.), Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control (pp.102–134). London: Cambridge Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enright, S. J., & Beech, A. R. (1990). Obsessional states: Anxiety disorders or schizotypes? An information processing and personality assessment. Psychological Medicine, 20(3), 621–627. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frith, C. D. (1979). Consciousness, information processing, and schizophrenia. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1341, 225–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2009). Constituent integration during the processing of compound words: Does it involve the use of relational structures? Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1), 20–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Typing time as an index of morphological and semantic effects during English compound processing. Lingue e Linguaggio, 13(2), 241–262.Google Scholar
(2016). Written production of English compounds: effects of morphology and semantic transparency. Morphology, 26(2), 133–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gignac, G. E., & Vernon, P. A. (2004). Reaction time and the dominant and non-dominant hands: An extension of Hick’s Law. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 733–739. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S., Newsome, M., & Goldvarg, Y. (2001). Inhibition of the literal: Filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol, 161, 277–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1988). Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 22 (pp. 193–225). New York, NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasher, L., Zacks, R. T., & May, C. P. (1999). Inhibitory control, circadian arousal, and age. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention & Performance, XVII, Cognitive Regulation of Performance: Interaction of Theory and Application (pp. 653–675). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Horga, G., & Maia, T. V. (2012). Conscious and unconscious processes in cognitive control: a theoretical perspective and a novel empirical approach. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iakimova, G., Passerieux, C., & Hardy-Bayle, M. C. (2006). The understanding of metaphors in schizophrenia and depression. An experimental approach. Encephale, 321, 995–1002. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imbrosciano, A., & Berlach, R. (2006). The Stroop test and its relationship to academic performance and general behaviour of young students. Teacher Development, 91, 131–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ji, H., Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2011). Benefits and costs of lexical decomposition and semantic integration during the processing of transparent and opaque English compounds. Journal of Memory and Language, 651, 406–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joormann, J., Yoon, K. L., Zetsche, U. (2007). Cognitive inhibition in depression. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 121, 128–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juhasz, B. J. (2007). The influence of semantic transparency on eye movements during English compound word recognition. In R. von Gompel, W. Murray, & M. Fischer (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain (pp. 373–389). Boston, MA: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knight, S., & Heinrich, A. (2017). Different measures of auditory and visual stroop interference and their relationship to speech intelligibility in noise. Frontiers in Psychology, 81, 230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuperman, V., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2011). Individual differences in visual comprehension of morphological complexity. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1643–1648). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Libben, G. (1993). A Case of obligatory access to morphological constituents. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 161, 111–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Everything is psycholinguistics: Material and methodological considerations in the study of compound processing. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistique. 501. 267–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Libben, G., Gibson, M., Yoon, Y. B., & Sandra, D. (2003). Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 841, 50–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Logan, G. D., Zbrodoff, N. J., & Williamson, J. (1984). Strategies in the color-word Stroop task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22(2), 135–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacGregor, L., & Shtyrov, Y. (2013). Multiple routes for compound word processing in the brain: Evidence from EEG. Brain & Language, 1261, 217–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychol. Bull. 1091, 163–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monterosso, J. R., Aron, A. R., Cordova, X., Xu, J., & London, E. D. (2005). Deficits in response inhibition associated with chronic methamphetamine abuse. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 79(2), 273–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandra, D. (1990). On the representation and processing of compound words: Automatic access to constituent morphemes does not occur. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 421, 529–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sani, S. R., Tabibi, Z., Fadardi, J. S., & Stavrinos, D. (2017). Aggression, emotional self-regulation, attentional bias, and cognitive inhibition predict risky driving behavior. Accident; analysis and prevention, 1091, 78–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Bienkowski, M. (1982). Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations on knowledge-based processing. Cognitive Psychology, 141, 489–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidtke, D., Van Dyke, J. A., & Kuperman, V. (2018). Individual variability in the semantic processing of English compound words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(3), 421–439.Google Scholar
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 181, 643–662. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traverso, L., Mantini, C., Usai, M. C., & Viterbori, P. (2015). The relationship between inhibition and working memory in preschoolers: Evidence for different inhibitory abilities. In G. Airenti, B. Bara, G. Sandini, & M. Cruciani (Eds.). Proceedings of the EuroAsianPacific Joint Conference on Cognitive Science / 4th European Conference on Cognitive Science / 11th International Conference on Cognitive Science (pp. 48–53). Torino, Italy.Google Scholar
Treisman, A., & Fearnley, S. (1969). The Stroop test: Selective attention to colours and words. Nature, 2221, 437–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Lombard, Alizée, Marine Wauquier, Cécile Fabre, Nabil Hathout, Lydia-Mai Ho-Dac & Richard Huyghe
2022. Evaluating morphosemantic demotivation through experimental and distributional methods. Lingvisticae Investigationes 45:1 ► pp. 83 ff. DOI logo
Park, Juana, Faria Sana, Christina L. Gagné & Thomas L. Spalding
2021. Factors that Influence the Processing of Noun-Noun Metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol 36:1 ► pp. 20 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.