Miscellaneous published in:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 15:2 (2020) ► pp. 366383

[ p. 380 ]References

Baayen, H. R., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D.
(2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boyce, V., Futrell, R., & Levy, R. P.
(2020) Maze Made Easy: Better and easier measurement of incremental processing difficulty. Journal of Language and Memory, 111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Almeida, R. G., Gallant, J., Skurnac, M., & Libben, G.
(February 2020) Semantically ambiguous stems and the purpose of morphological processing. Nineteenth International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
de Almeida, R. G., Gallant, J., & Libben, G.
(2020) When the root of barking can access the tree: Eye-tracking and maze evidence for independent activation of semantically ambiguous morphological constituents in sentences. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Forster, K.
(2010) Using a maze task to track lexical and sentence processing. The Mental Lexicon, 5, 347–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K., Guerrera, C., & Elliot, L.
(2009) The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behavior Research Methods 2009, 41, 163–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grainger, J., & Segui, J.
(1990) Neighborhood frequency effects in visual word recognition: A comparison of lexical decision and masked identification latencies. Perception and Psychophysics, 47, 191–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Saavedra, D. C.
(2018) The unidirectionality of semantic changes in grammaticalization: an experimental approach to the asymmetric priming hypothesis. English Language and Linguistics, 22, 357–380. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, K. A., Balota, D. A., Neely, J. H., Cortese, M. J., Cohen-Shikora, E. R., Tse, C.-S., Yap, M. J., Bengson, J. J., Niemeyer, D., & Buchanan, E.
(2013) The semantic priming project. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1099–1114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D.
(1982) Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kieslich, P. J., Henninger, F., Wulff, D. U., Haslbeck, J. M. B., & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M.
(2019) Mouse-tracking: A practical guide to implementation and analysis. In M. Schulte-Mecklenbeck, A. Kühberger, & J. G. Johnson (Eds.), A Handbook of Process Tracing Methods. New York, NY: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Libben, G.
(2006) Why study compounds? An overview of the issues. In G. Libben & G. Jarema, (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words. Oxford: Oxford University Press (pp. 1–21).Google Scholar
(2014) The nature of compounds: a psychocentric perspective. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 31, 8–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, J., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M., Richard Höchenberger Sogo, H., … Jonas Kristoffer Lindelov
(2019) PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X.
(2015) Language control in bilingual language comprehension: evidence from the maze task. Frontiers in Psychology. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 381 ]
Witzel, J., & Forster, K.
(2015) Lexical co-occurrence and ambiguity resolution. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(2), 158–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Witzel, N., Witzel, J., Forster, K.
(2012) Comparisons of online reading paradigms: Eye tracking, moving-window, and maze. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41, 105–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar