65, 361–394 (1998)
BL981998
BRAIN AND LANGUAGE
ARTICLE NO.
Hemispheric Differences in Context Sensitivity During
Lexical Ambiguity Resolution
Debra Titone
Harvard Medical School and McLean Hospital
Three experiments were conducted to investigate the influence of contextual constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution in the cerebral hemispheres. A cross-modal
priming variant of the divided visual field task was utilized in which subjects heard
sentences containing homonyms and made lexical decisions to targets semantically
related to dominant and subordinate meanings. Experiment 1 showed priming in
both hemispheres of dominant meanings for homonyms embedded in neutral sentence contexts. Experiment 2 showed priming in both hemispheres of dominant and
subordinate meanings for homonyms embedded in sentence contexts that biased a
central semantic feature of the subordinate meaning. Experiment 3 showed priming
of dominant meanings in the left hemisphere (LH), and priming of the subordinate
meaning in the right hemisphere (RH) for homonyms embedded in sentences that
biased a peripheral semantic feature of the subordinate meaning. These results are
consistent with a context-sensitive model of language processing that incorporates
differential sensitivity to semantic relationships in the cerebral hemispheres.  1998
Academic Press
One of the most commonly studied forms of ambiguity in language is
lexical ambiguity (i.e., homonyms such as bank that refer to two semantically
distinct entities, a financial institution and the side of a river). Many psycholinguistic studies of homonym processing have shown that comprehenders
have access to two important sources of information to resolve lexical ambiguity. One source of information comes from a comprehender’s prior experience with a homonym. A particular meaning of a homonym may be more
This research was supported by NIDCD Grants R29 N521587 and DC02134 to Dr. Cynthia
M. Connine, and a Dissertation Research Award from the American Psychological Association
to the author. This paper is based on a Doctoral Dissertation at the State University of New
York at Binghamton. The author expresses gratitude to Dr. Cynthia M. Connine for her invaluable guidance throughout all phases of this research. Additional thanks go to Drs. Albrecht
Inhoff, Celia Klin, Hiram Brownell, and Arthur Wingfield for comments on the manuscript,
and Thomas Deelman and Karen Lashin for running subjects. Address correspondence and
reprint requests to Debra A. Titone, Psychology Research Laboratory, McLean Hospital, 115
Mill Street, Belmont, MA 02478. E-mail: [email protected].
361
0093-934X/98 $25.00
Copyright  1998 by Academic Press
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
362
DEBRA TITONE
frequent or dominant than another, and a great deal of evidence indicates
that dominant meanings are activated more quickly, and are more likely to
be integrated into higher-level representations than subordinate meanings
(Simpson & Burgess, 1985; Simpson & Kreuger, 1991; Simpson, 1981;
Rayner & Duffy, 1986; Duffy, Morris, & Rayner, 1988; Frazier & Rayner,
1990). Another source of information, especially important for the purposes
of the present work, comes from a comprehender’s experience with a homonym when it is embedded in a particular context. In principle, context may
include characteristics of the theme or topic of a conversation (e.g., bank in
a conversation about finances), individuals participating in a conversation
(e.g., bank in a conversation between accountants), or the physical location
of a word’s utterance (e.g., bank in a conversation taking place in a bank).
However, most homonym processing research has focused on the limited
case of words embedded in biasing sentence contexts.
One important neuropsychological question concerns how the brain supports a comprehender’s ability to resolve ambiguity in context through sensitivity to lexical sources of information (i.e., meaning dominance) and nonlexical sources of information (i.e., context) during language processing.
Although common beliefs concerning the neuroanatomical localization of
language hold that the left cerebral hemisphere (LH) solely mediates linguistic ability, a good deal of work posits a nontrivial role for the right cerebral
hemisphere (RH), especially within the domain of lexical-semantic processing (Chiarello, 1991; Joanette, Goulet, & Hannequin, 1990; Beeman,
1993). In particular, this work has implications for how different kinds of
sentence contexts may be utilized to resolve lexical ambiguity during comprehension. The purpose of the present set of experiments is to test predictions of how activation of homonym meaning should differ in the LH and
RH as a function of characteristics of sentence contexts.
Homonym Processing in Context
Because homonyms have semantically distinct meanings that may be independently probed, they have been a particularly useful tool for examining
the degree to which context influences (or does not influence) initial meaning
activation. One recently proposed processing is the context-sensitive model
of lexical ambiguity resolution (Kellas, Paul, Martin, & Simpson, 1991; Paul,
Kellas, Martin, & Clark, 1992; Simpson & Kreuger, 1991; Tabossi, Colombo, & Job, 1987; Tabossi & Zardon, 1993). According to this model,
meaning dominance and context simultaneously produce semantic constraints that influence homonym activation during comprehension. The context-sensitive approach is formally represented by a connectionist model developed by Kawamoto (1988, 1993). In a series of simulations, Kawamoto
showed that meaning dominance and contextual strength interact during
homonym processing. Dominant meanings were selectively accessed when
DIFFERENCES IN CONTEXT SENSITIVITY
363
embedded in neutral contexts, contexts that bias many or few semantic features of dominant meanings, and contexts that bias few semantic features of
subordinate meanings. In contrast, subordinate meanings were selectively
accessed only in contexts biasing many semantic features of subordinate
meanings. This simulation clearly shows the dynamic relationship between
meaning dominance and contextual strength. It predicts that the degree of
semantic constraint generated by a sentence context (holding meaning dominance constant) differentially influences homonym meaning activation.
Although an empirical analog of these simulations has not been conducted,
it is possible to organize data obtained in homonym processing studies to
garner support for the context-sensitive model. Seidenberg, Tanenhaus, Leiman, and Bienkowski (1982) obtained selective access for associatively biased sentence contexts, but not for pragmatically or syntactically biased sentence contexts. Presumably, associatively biased contexts have a great deal
of semantic feature overlap with the contextually appropriate meaning of a
homonym (e.g., ‘‘The man inspected the ship’s DECK’’). In contrast, pragmatically and syntactically biased contexts may have less semantic feature
overlap (e.g., ‘‘The man walked on the DECK’’).
Sentence contexts without semantic associates that directly prime central
semantic features of word meaning may also be highly constraining (Tabossi,
1988; Tabossi et al., 1987; Tabossi & Zardon, 1993; Simpson & Kreuger,
1991). For example, Tabossi (1988) examined the effects of feature-priming
(e.g., ‘‘The violent hurricane did not damage the ships which were in the
PORT, one of the best equipped along the coast’’) and pragmatic contexts
(e.g., ‘‘The man had to be at five o’clock at the PORT for an important
meeting’’). She found selective activation of dominant meanings for feature
priming contexts biasing dominant meanings, and multiple activation for
pragmatic contexts biasing dominant meanings (see also Tabossi & Zardon,
1993; Simpson & Kreuger, 1991; Simpson, 1981). In contrast, feature priming contexts biasing subordinate meanings did not produce selective activation of subordinate meanings (Tabossi & Zardon, 1993).
The notion of context sensitivity has also been supported by results from
studies examining eye movements during reading (Duffy et al., 1988;
Rayner & Frazier, 1989; Dopkins, Morris, & Rayner, 1992; Sereno, Pacht, &
Rayner, 1992). For example, Duffy et al. (1988) found that subjects read
ambiguous words having clear dominant meanings and following dominantbiased contexts more quickly than equi-biased ambiguous words following
biased contexts. They argued that although context facilitated contextually
appropriate meanings for both biased and equi-biased homonyms, the nonbiased meaning was still activated for the equi-biased words, resulting in a
need for additional processing time. Additionally, Rayner and Frazier (1989)
found that reading times of biased homonyms were faster when the preceding
context biased the dominant meaning than when it biased the subordinate
meaning. Taken together, these results are consistent with those from the
364
DEBRA TITONE
cross modal priming work in suggesting a dynamic relationship between
meaning dominance and contextual strength.
The notion of context sensitivity is similar to the contextual constraint
view proposed by Schwanenflugel and colleagues for unambiguous words
(Schwanenflugel, 1991; Schwanenflugel & Shoben, 1985; Schwanenflugel &
LaCount, 1988). In this view, contextual constraint directly influences the
semantic features primed by a sentence context. Highly constraining sentence contexts activate many semantic features (e.g., ‘‘The tired mother gave
’’ ; [cleans], [given by mothers], [taken by huher dirty children a
mans], [common to children], etc.), while less constraining sentence contexts
activate few semantic features (e.g., ‘‘Hank reached into his pocket to get
,’’ [small], [can be found in pockets]) (Schwanenflugel, 1991).
the
In support of this model, Schwanenflugel and colleagues (Schwanenflugel &
Shoben, 1985; Schwanenflugel & LaCount, 1988) found priming for a wide
range of word completions in low constraint sentences, and priming for a
narrow range of word completions in high constraint sentences. They concluded that word meanings are primed to the degree that they share semantic
features with those activated by a particular sentence context.
However, sheer overlap of semantic features between a sentence context
and an upcoming word may not be the sole determiner of contextual strength
if some features are more defining than others. For example, Barsalou (1982)
has argued that features of word meanings may be arranged along a continuum of salience based upon their context-independence or context-dependence. In the present study we assume that context-independent properties
(i.e., semantic features that are activated in all contexts) are central to a
word’s meaning whereas context-dependent properties (i.e., semantic properties that are activated only when the context calls for them) are more peripheral to a word’s meaning. Consistent with this assumption, several experiments have shown that some semantic properties of words are activated
regardless of contextual bias, whereas other semantic properties of words
are activated only in contexts that support them (Barsalou, 1982; see also,
Greenspan, 1986; Whitney, McKay, Kellas, & Emerson, 1985; Schoen,
1988; cf., Moss & Marslen-Wilson, 1993).
The Neuropsychology of Context Sensitivity
A context sensitive approach to homonym processing may be explicated
in greater detail by considering hemispheric differences in lexical-semantic
processing. Recently, it has been argued that the cognitive operations required for the full range of lexical-semantic processing are differentially partitioned between the cerebral hemispheres (e.g., Beeman, 1993; Chiarello,
1991; Brownell, 1988). According to Beeman, the LH processes language
through the fine coding of semantic information (i.e., activating focused
meaning representations consisting of strong, central semantic information).
DIFFERENCES IN CONTEXT SENSITIVITY
365
Therefore, the LH is best suited for language tasks that require selection of
a single interpretation and inhibition of irrelevant information. In contrast,
the RH processes language though the coarse coding of information (i.e.,
activating large but diffuse semantic fields consisting of central and peripheral semantic information). Consequently, there is a greater probability of
semantic overlap with new words that share similar peripheral features. Although coarse coding is inadequate for selecting specific aspects of meaning,
it is useful for maintaining coherence in discourse, and revising interpretations that subsequent context show to be incorrect (Beeman, 1993; see also,
Chiarello, 1991, for a similar theory that focuses on semantic revision). The
implication of this work to the study of homonym processing (or the processing of unambiguous words) in context is that the semantic constraint
generated by a particular sentence context should differ for the left and right
cerebral hemispheres.
Evidence for a hemispheric model of semantic processing includes studies
examining neurologically impaired subjects. Residual language ability of patients with LH damage is assumed to reflect a RH contribution to the processing of peripheral aspects of meaning (Van Lancker, 1990; Huber, 1990).
For example, Milberg and Blumstein (1981) found that Wernicke’s aphasics,
largely unable to use semantic information, nevertheless show semantic
priming suggesting a RH contribution to semantic processing. In contrast,
residual language ability of RH damaged patients is assumed to reflect a LH
deficit in some forms of semantic processing. Most relevant to the present
study, RH damaged patients are impaired in processing connotative (i.e.,
peripheral) aspects of word meaning (Brownell, 1988; Brownell, Potter,
Michelow, & Garner, 1984; Hagoort, Brown, & Swaab, 1996). They have
also shown impairments in areas of language understanding that often rely
on the apprehension of peripheral semantic relationships: they are unable to
use peripheral aspects of discourse to interpret sarcasm (Kaplan, Brownell,
Jacobs, & Gardner, 1990; Tompkins & Matteer, 1985), indirect requests
(Foldi, 1987; Hirst, LeDoux, & Stein, 1984), and complex narratives
(Brownell, Carroll, Rehak, & Wingfield, 1992; Beeman, 1993). Deficits in
idiom and metaphor comprehension, aspects of language that often rely on
the apprehension of peripheral semantic relationships, are also associated
with RH, but not LH, damage (Winner & Gardner, 1977; Van Lancker &
Kempler, 1987; Myers & Linebaugh, 1981). The contribution of the RH to
metaphor comprehension was also demonstrated in a PET study in which a
RH increase in blood flow was associated with judgments of sentence plausibility for sentences containing metaphors (Bottini et al., 1994).
In addition to the work with neurologically impaired populations, divided
visual field, semantic priming studies with neurologically intact subjects,
have been instrumental in demonstrating hemispheric differences in semantic
processing. The divided visual field task capitalizes on anatomy of the visual
system in which stimuli presented in the left half of the visual field are ini-
366
DEBRA TITONE
tially transmitted to the right visual cortex and vice versa. Consequently,
stimuli presented to the right visual field (RVF) are assumed to reflect LH
processing, whereas stimuli presented to the left visual field (LVF) are assumed to reflect RH processing. Studies using the divided visual field method
have shown priming for associatively related primes and targets (e.g., tiger–
lion) in both hemispheres (i.e., high semantic feature overlap; Chiarello, Burgess, Richards, & Pollock, 1990; Chiarello, Senehi, & Nuding, 1987; Eglin,
1987; Marcel & Patterson, 1978). In contrast, priming for categorically related stimuli (e.g., bear–cow) has been found in the RH only (see also Rodel,
Cook, Regard, & Landis, 1992; Nakagawa, 1991; Chiarello & Richards,
1992; Chiarello, 1985; Michimata, 1987). Similarly, Beeman et al. (1994,
Experiment 2) found faster response times in the LH for targets preceded
by direct primes (i.e., high feature overlap) than by summation primes (i.e.,
less feature overlap), or unrelated primes. In contrast, direct and summation
primes were equally efficient in the RH in facilitating target detection. This
suggests that priming occurs more readily in the LH when prime stimuli
share a direct semantic relationship with a target. Priming effects are equally
likely in the RH for prime stimuli sharing a direct or indirect relationship
with a target.
In the domain of homonym processing, a divided visual field experiment
investigating hemispheric differences showed immediate activation of dominant and subordinate meanings in neutral contexts (Burgess & Simpson,
1988), and no activation of subordinate meanings for the LH within 750
ms of homonym presentation. In contrast, only the RH showed immediate
activation of dominant meanings and delayed activation of subordinate
meanings. This suggests that, for neutral contexts, the LH suppresses, and
the RH maintains activation of subordinate meanings over time (see also
Burgess & Cushman, 1990, for a similar pattern using LH and RH damaged
subjects). Arguably, suppression results from controlled processing, and evidence of a LH specialization for controlled processing has been well documented (e.g., Chiarello, 1985; Hagoort, 1993; Ostrin & Tyler, 1993; Nakagawa, 1991). This work has not addressed, however, differences in
contextual influence on word meaning activation. Differences in contextual
processing should arise if the hemispheres are differentially sensitive to particular kinds of semantic relationships.
The Present Study
Given evidence of LH sensitivity to central semantic relationships and RH
sensitivity to central and peripheral semantic relationships, context sensitivity during homonym processing should differ for the cerebral hemispheres.
Specifically, a particular context and homonym meaning must share central
semantic features to influence LH activation, whereas a particular context
and homonym meaning need not share central semantic features to influence
DIFFERENCES IN CONTEXT SENSITIVITY
367
RH activation (i.e., shared central and peripheral features should both influence meaning activation). This view predicts that sentence contexts that bias
central semantic features of subordinate meanings will produce heightened
subordinate activation in both hemispheres. Alternatively, contexts that bias
peripheral semantic features of subordinate meanings should produce heightened subordinate activation in the RH only.
Implicit in this study of cerebral differences in sensitivity to contextual
constraint is a decompositional theory of word meaning which posits the
existence of semantic features (e.g., Katz & Fodor, 1963). Accordingly, semantic features are arbitrary symbols internal to the linguistic system and
devoid of content in much the same way that syntactic elements are formally
represented in grammatical theory (Murphy, 1991). One potential problem,
however, is the assumption that semantic representations are functionally
distinct from conceptual knowledge (Murphy, 1991; Komatsu, 1992; Moss,
Ostrin, Tyler, & Marslen-Wilson, 1995). That is, although a formal theory
of semantic representation allows for representation of relationships within
the linguistic system (e.g., antonymy, synonymy), it cannot explain how a
particular word gets connected, through conceptual knowledge, to a particular referent in the world. Although one solution to this problem is to hypothesize that meanings are built out of concepts (Clark, 1983; Murphy, 1991),
some have argued that concepts possess a certain amount of instability across
and within individuals (e.g., Barsalou, 1987; 1989) in a way that does not
hold true for word meanings. However, as Murphy (1991) argues, a strong
case has not been made for the stability of word meanings either, and properties of concepts that produce their malleability may also exist for word meanings. Consequently, the present study assumes an isomorphic relationship
between word meanings and concepts similar to other work investigating
the effects of contextual feature priming on meaning activation (e.g., Moss &
Marslen-Wilson, 1993; Moss et al., 1995).
The following experiments were conducted using a cross modal priming
variant of the divided visual field paradigm in which auditory sentences were
immediately followed by visual targets laterally presented for a lexical decision response. Several points concerning this methodology require mention.
First, contexts biased toward subordinate meanings were chosen as the most
conservative way to examine the influence of context on initial meaning
activation. Given the results of several studies showing selective activation
of dominant meanings at homonym offset in neutral and dominant-biased
contexts (e.g., Simpson, 1981), use of subordinate contexts ensures that selective activation of contextually appropriate meanings is attributable to the
context and not the normal time course of meaning activation.
A second point concerns the type of control condition used in the experiments. Previous studies examining the effects of sentence context on word
processing have utilized a variety of control conditions (e.g., compare reaction times to the same target preceded by different prime stimuli, compare
368
DEBRA TITONE
reaction times to different targets preceded by the same and different prime
stimuli). Selection of a control condition in the present study was constrained
by a strong consideration of how different kinds of control conditions may
artificially inflate priming effects. In the control condition used in the present
study, the homonym (i.e., the critical word) was replaced with a control word
that, simultaneously, was plausible in the context and semantically unrelated
to the visual target. All other elements of the sentence remained identical.
Consequently, the biasing context and the visual target were present in both
the experimental and the control conditions such that if the context itself
primed the target, it would have done so for both the experimental and the
control conditions. Given that priming effects are assessed by subtracting
the experimental condition RT from the control condition RT, facilitation of
the target produced by the sentence context is subtracted out. Therefore,
priming effects obtained using this type of control condition are attributable
only to presence or absence of the homonym in a particular context.
This type of control procedure may be contrasted with a target control
procedure that does not factor out facilitation of the visual target due to
presence of the homonym and presence of the biased sentence context. In this
procedure, the biased sentence containing the homonym is followed either by
a related word or an unrelated word. Therefore, in the experimental condition, the related visual target may have semantic overlap with both the homonym and the context, whereas the unrelated target does not have semantic
overlap with either one. Subtracting RT of the related target from the unrelated target may inadvertently reflect facilitation due to the context and the
homonym simultaneously.
A final point concerns the use of the divided visual field task. Given that
much of what is known regarding hemispheric differences in semantic processing, including the present study, relies upon results from the divided
visual field task, it is important to point out that this methodology has been
subject to much criticism along a number of fronts. In general, these arguments center on the notion that what is routinely interpreted as a LH advantage for linguistic material could also be interpreted in terms of artifactual
aspects of the task itself. The primary thrust of these criticisms is that stimuli
presented to the RVF have clearer word-initial information than stimuli presented to the LVF because of directional scanning preferences, visual acuity
gradients, or ocular dominance. Therefore, words presented to the RVF are
easier to identify than words presented to the LVF in which word-final information is relatively more disrupted, and performance advantages for stimuli
presented to the RVF do not reflect differences in cerebral processing.
Although this argument has much intuitive appeal, research exploring the
boundary conditions of the paradigm repeatedly demonstrates that visual
field performance asymmetries are not attributable to these artifacts, but do
reflect potential cerebral processing propensities. Contrary to what one
would predict if directional scanning preferences were responsible for visual
DIFFERENCES IN CONTEXT SENSITIVITY
369
field asymmetries, a number of studies show a RVF advantage for Hebrew,
a language in which directional scanning preferences produce a LVF advantage (e.g., Babkoff & Ben-Uriah, 1983; Shanon, 1982; Silverberg, 1979; Isseroff, Carmon, & Nachson, 1974; Faust, Babkoff, & Kravetz, 1995). Indeed,
in a study by Faust, Kravetz, and Babkoff (1993), a RVF advantage for Hebrew stimuli was obtained even when targets were preceded by visually presented prime sentences (and this effect was somewhat larger than what was
found when prime stimuli were not presented). Clearly, if directional scanning preferences drove the pattern of performance asymmetries, the effect
would have been reduced when subjects were orienting their attention to
the left in order to successfully read the prime sentences (see also Hardyk,
Chiarello, & Dronkers, 1985, for evidence showing that instructions to orient
attention to a visual field do not alter the RVF advantage). In addition, a RVF
superiority for linguistic material has been found regardless of the ocular
dominance of subjects (Church & Chiarello, 1988), and RVF advantages are
found when target stimuli are presented such that the presumed benefits due
to directional scanning preferences are reversed (e.g., for stimuli presented
in mirror image, Silverberg, 1979, or vertically, Boles, 1985; Byrd & Moscovitch, 1984; Chiarello, 1988; Ellis & Young, 1977; Hatta, 1977). Finally,
visual stimuli presented to the LVF and RVF have an associated increase in
blood flow (as measured by PET) in the right and left cerebral hemispheres,
respectively (Fox et al., 1986; Posner & Raichle, 1994).
Finally, and specific to divided visual field experiments of semantic
priming, the hemispheric differences of interest are based upon withinhemisphere and within-subject comparisons. Stated somewhat differently,
absolute differences in performance as a function of target location are less
important in these experiments than relative differences in performance for
related and control trials as a function of target location. Because priming
effects are assessed for a particular target location on the basis of difference
scores between related and unrelated trials for a given subject, any absolute
difference in baseline target detection for a particular target location is subtracted out. It is also likely that cerebral differences in absolute detection
performance across visual fields are not responsible for differential priming
effects given that studies have obtained similar patterns of results when detection levels for RVF and LVF target presentation are equated by adjusting
stimulus quality (e.g., Beeman et al., 1994).
The sequence of the experiments is as follows. Neutral sentences containing homonyms or control words (e.g., ‘‘They really liked the BALL
[MOVIE]’’) were presented in Experiment 1 (to ensure that the paradigm
was sensitive to differences in dominant and subordinate activation of homonyms in the cerebral hemispheres). Sentence contexts that biased central
semantic features of subordinate meanings (e.g., ‘‘Because it featured a great
orchestra, they really liked the BALL [MOVIE]’’) were presented in Experiment 2. Finally, sentence contexts that biased peripheral semantic features
370
DEBRA TITONE
of subordinate meanings (e.g., ‘‘Because it lasted the entire night, they really
liked the BALL [MOVIE]’’) were presented in Experiment 3.
EXPERIMENT 1: NEUTRAL CONTEXT
Method
Subjects
Seventy-two right-handed students at the State University of New York at Binghamton
received credit towards an Introductory Psychology course for participation in the study. A
preference questionnaire designed to determine hand preference for a number of activities was
used to assess handedness (Bryden, 1982). Laterality scores were determined, and right-handed
subjects scoring at least .60 were included in the study. All subjects were native speakers of
English and reported no hearing or visual impairments.
Stimuli
Experimental materials consisted of 64 noun–noun homonyms selected from published
norms (Nelson, McEvoy, Walling, & Wheeler, 1980). A booklet containing homonyms and
paraphrased meanings was presented to 50 subjects instructed to circle the most frequent sense.
Ratings were analyzed according to a z approximation of the binomial distribution, and dominant and subordinate meanings were determined (62% agreement, z ⫽ 1.65, p ⬍ .05). Experimental sentences consisted of homonyms embedded in neutral sentence clauses (see Appendix
A). Control sentences were constructed by replacing homonyms with control words while
keeping all other elements of the sentences identical . Control words were selected to form
plausible completions to neutral sentences (Experiment 1), central feature sentences (Experiment 2), and peripheral feature sentences (Experiment 3) while not being semantically related
to visual targets.
Visual targets related to dominant and subordinate meanings consisted of two associates
selected from the Nelson et al. (1980) norms. Sentences were recorded by a male speaker in
a quiet room, low pass filtered at 4.8 kHz, and digitized at 10 kHz. A click, inaudible to
subjects, was placed at the offset of homonyms or control words. This click triggered presentation of the visual target and started a timer for recording responses and reaction times.
It was of particular concern in the selection of stimulus materials that differences in relatedness between the visual targets and the auditory control words were kept to a minimum.
If semantic relatedness differed across conditions, an intrinsic bias for detecting activation of
one kind of meaning over another in the stimulus materials themselves may have been produced. To address this concern, a normative study was conducted in which 64 subjects rated
the degree of relatedness between all sentence final words and visual targets used in the experiments using a 5-point likert-type scale. Presentation of word pairs was counterbalanced into
4 stimulus lists which contained 32 homonym-dominant target pairs, 32 homonym-subordinate
target pairs, 32 control word-dominant target pairs, and 32 control word-subordinate target
pairs. A total of 16 subjects provided relatedness ratings for each counterbalanced list.
Paired comparisons on this data revealed that relatedness judgments for homonym-dominant
target pairs were significantly greater than that for control word-dominant target pairs (4.4 vs
1.6; t(63) ⫽ 24.2, p ⬍ .01). This was also true for the difference between homonym-subordinate target pairs and control word-subordinate target pairs (3.5 vs 2.0; t(63) ⫽ 9.1, p ⬍ .01).
However, relatedness was significantly higher for homonym-dominant target pairs compared
to homonym-subordinate target pairs (4.4 vs 3.5; t(63) ⫽ 8.0, p ⬍ .01), and for control wordsubordinate target pairs compared to control word-dominant target pairs (2.0 vs 1.6; t(63) ⫽
4.1, p ⬍ .01). Given that the difference between homonym-dominant and control-dominant
DIFFERENCES IN CONTEXT SENSITIVITY
371
pairs is almost double that of homonym-subordinate and control-subordinate pairs, it is likely
that the current study was better able to detect dominant priming than subordinate priming.
Although this is problematic for data showing no priming of the subordinate meaning and in
a comparison of the magnitudes of dominant and subordinate priming, it is not problematic
for the interpretation relative differences in contextual sensitivity when subordinate priming
is present.
Apparatus
A microcomputer coordinated presentation of auditory sentences and visual targets, and
recorded reaction time and accuracy data for each trial. Subjects listened to sentences over
headphones and viewed visual targets on a computer monitor. A mounted head and chin rest
kept subjects at a fixed viewing distance from the computer monitor (36 cm).
Experimental Design and Procedure
The experiment was a 2 (sentence type: homonym-bearing or control) ⫻ 2 (target type:
dominant or subordinate) ⫻ 2 (target location: LVF or RVF) within subjects design. Eight
lists were created such that all factors were counterbalanced across items and subjects. Each
list contained 64 experimental trials with word targets, and 64 filler trials with nonword targets.
Nonword targets were approximately matched to word targets for number of letters and were
orthographically legal letter strings. Overall, 25% of trials were semantically related.
Subjects were run individually or in groups of two in an experimental session that lasted
approximately 45 minutes. Subjects were seated in front of the monitor, and placed their heads
in the head and chin rest. All visual stimuli were presented in lowercase horizontally, 2 degrees
of visual angle to the left or right of fixation. A target presentation duration of 150 ms was
selected as a type of fixation control. The time necessary for initiation of a saccade (excluding
travel time) has a reported range of 150 to 200 ms, and a standard deviation of 20 to 25 ms
(Hardyk, Dronkers, Chiarello, & Simpson, 1985; Young, 1982). Therefore, it is unlikely that
subjects were able to centrally encode the target with this target duration. All stimuli subtended
1.5–3.5 degrees of horizontal visual angle and 0.5 degrees of vertical visual angle. The session
began with 2 to 5 blocks of 20 practice trials depending upon performance level in initial
practice trials. Error feedback was given after each trial, and RT feedback (i.e., average RT
for the block), after each block. Additional practice trials were presented until subjects reached
70% accuracy for LVF and RVF word and nonword trials. One experimental block containing
128 trials, in which subjects had a rest break after 64 trials, followed practice trials. Subjects
were randomly assigned to one of eight experimental lists.
Each trial began with presentation of a central fixation point and an auditory sentence. At
offset of the sentence-final homonym or control word, a visual target was presented for 150
ms to the LVF or RVF for a lexical decision response. Subjects made lexical decision responses
by pressing an appropriately labeled response key with their right hand. Subjects were informed that the experiment investigated how people detect stimuli they were not directly looking at. They were instructed to maintain gaze on the central fixation marker as long as it
appeared, and to make responses based on what they could see from the periphery as quickly
and accurately as possible. In order to ensure that subjects comprehended the sentences, comprehension trials were randomly distributed across one third of the total trials. After each trial,
subjects received either response accuracy feedback (two thirds of trials), or comprehension
questions (one third of trials). All subjects responded to comprehension questions with at least
70% accuracy.
Results
A three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for RT and
accuracy data across subjects (F1) and items (F2) with sentence type (hom-
372
DEBRA TITONE
TABLE 1
Reaction Time Data for Experiment 1 as a Function of Visual Field of Target Presentation,
Sentence Type, and Target Type
Experiment 1: Neutral context, target presented at offset
Sentence type
Right visual field (LH)
Target type
Homonym-bearing
Control
Priming
Dominant
Subordinate
31 ms
⫺11 ms
Left visual field (RH)
Target type
Dominant
Subordinate
775 (92)
801 (86)
806 (88)
790 (84)
Sentence type
Homonym-bearing
Control
Priming
768 (90)
795 (82)
797 (86)
798 (83)
29 ms
3 ms
Note. Accuracy data are presented in parentheses.
onym-bearing or control word-bearing), target type (dominant or subordinate), and visual field (LVF or RVF) as factors. Standard deviations were
computed for each subject’s RT data, and responses less than or greater than
three standard deviations of an individual subject’s mean RT were omitted
from all analyses. Accuracy and RT are depicted in Table 1.
Reaction times were faster for targets that followed homonym-bearing
sentences than for targets that followed control sentences (785 vs 798 ms,
respectively; 13 ms difference). This main effect of sentence type was significant in the subject analysis (F1(1, 71) ⫽ 4.0, MSe ⫽ 6102, p ⬍ .05),
and marginally significant in the item analysis (F2(1, 63) ⫽ 3.4, MSe ⫽
6334, p ⫽ .07). A significant interaction between sentence and target type
indicated a difference in RT between homonym-bearing and control sentences for dominant targets but not for subordinate targets (771 and 801 vs
798 and 794, respectively; 30 and ⫺4 ms priming effects; F1(1, 71) ⫽ 6.6,
MSe ⫽ 6328, p ⫽ .01; F2(1, 63) ⫽ 5.8, MSe ⫽ 6664, p ⬍ .05). The t-tests
comparing RTs collapsed across visual field were significant for dominant
targets (t1(71) ⫽ 3, p ⬍ .01; t2(63) ⫽ 3, p ⬍ .01; 772 vs 802 ms, related
and control conditions, respectively), but not for subordinate targets. Further
t-tests comparing RTs to dominant targets were significant for both LVF
target location (t1(71) ⫽ 2.0, p ⬍ .05; t2(63) ⫽ 2.1, p ⬍ .05; 768 vs 797
ms, respectively; 29 ms priming effect) and RVF target location (t1(71) ⫽
2.4, p ⬍ .05; t2(63) ⫽ 2.4, p ⬍ .05; 775 vs 806 ms respectively; 31 ms
priming effect). In contrast, the t-tests comparing RTs to subordinate targets
were not significant in either visual field (798 vs 798 ms for homonymbearing vs control sentences with LVF target presentation; 801 vs 790 ms
for homonym-bearing vs control sentences with RVF target presentation).
No other effects were significant.
DIFFERENCES IN CONTEXT SENSITIVITY
373
Targets presented to the RVF were responded to more accurately than
targets presented to the LVF. This main effect narrowly missed significance
in the subject analysis (F1(1, 71) ⫽ 3.6, MSe ⫽ 228.5, p ⫽ .06) and was
significant in the item analysis (F2(1, 63) ⫽ 4.2, MSe ⫽ 182.8, p ⬍ .05;
85.1 vs 87.6% correct, respectively). Responses to dominant targets were
more accurate than responses to subordinate targets (F1(1, 71) ⫽ 28.1, MSe
⫽ 127.8, p ⬍ .01; F2(1, 63) ⫽ 5.7, MSe ⫽ 551, p ⬍ .01; 88.9 vs 83.9%
correct, respectively). Finally, responses to targets following homonym-bearing sentences were more accurate than responses to targets following control
sentences (87.5 vs 85.3% correct, respectively). The main effect of sentence
type narrowly missed significance in the subject analysis (F1(1, 71) ⫽ 3.5,
MSe ⫽ 713.0, p ⫽ .06) and was significant in the item analysis (F2(1, 63)
⫽ 4.1, MSe ⫽ 148.5, p ⬍ .05).
Discussion
Consistent with previous research, Experiment 1 showed an overall left
hemisphere advantage in lexical decision accuracy. This performance asymmetry did not extend, however, to lexical decision latencies. The results also
showed that responses to dominant targets overall were more accurate than
responses to subordinate targets. This difference, however, does not cloud
the interpretation of priming effects given that priming is assessed by a comparison of the same target following two different prime stimuli. In terms
of semantic priming, Experiment 1 showed activation of dominant, but not
subordinate, meanings for both hemispheres, consistent with data obtained
using central (Simpson & Burgess, 1985) and lateralized target presentation
(Burgess & Simpson, 1988). Although Burgess and Simpson (1988) found
priming at offset for subordinate meanings in the LH, it was half the magnitude of priming found for dominant meanings. It is also possible that the
present study underestimated subordinate activation because of differences
in relatedness between homonyms, control words, and visual targets.
Experiment 1 established a homonym dominance effect given a neutral
context in both hemispheres. Experiments 2 and 3 extended these results to
examine the influence of central feature and peripheral feature sentence contexts on activation of dominant and contextually appropriate subordinate
meanings in the cerebral hemispheres.
EXPERIMENT 2: CENTRAL FEATURE CONTEXTS
Method
Subjects
A total of 56 right-handed students at the State University of New York at Binghamton
received credit towards an Introductory Psychology course for their participation in the study.
Handedness was assessed with the preference questionnaire used in Experiment 1. All subjects
were native speakers of English and reported no hearing or visual impairments.
374
DEBRA TITONE
Stimuli and Procedure
The 64 neutral sentences used in Experiment 1 were revised to include a preceding sentence
clause emphasizing central semantic features of subordinate meanings (see Appendix B), or
peripheral semantic features of subordinate meanings (see Appendix C). Because selection of
central semantic features used in Experiment 2 and selection of peripheral semantic features
used in Experiment 3 were obtained using the same normative procedure, discussion of central
and peripheral feature selection is combined. A group of 15 independent subjects were given
booklets containing homonyms with subordinate meanings in parentheses, and instructed to
list salient characteristics of each meaning in their order of importance. Central features of
subordinate meanings were determined by selecting characteristics provided by the majority
of subjects that had the highest rank ordering. In contrast, peripheral semantic features were
determined either by selecting the characteristic that was provided by the fewest number of
subjects with the lowest rank ordering, or, in the case where reported characteristics were
provided by a majority of subjects, the experimenter chose a characteristic that minimally
differentiated subordinate meanings from dominant meanings (e.g., a school of fish is animate,
a school where learning takes place is not).
Following the selection of central semantic features, biased context clauses were constructed
based on central and peripheral features of subordinate meanings that preceded the neutral
sentences used in Experiment 1 (e.g., ‘‘Because it featured a great orchestra, they really liked
the BALL’’ and ‘‘Because it lasted all night, they really liked the BALL,’’ central and peripheral feature examples, respectively). To create control sentences, homonyms were replaced
by control words while keeping all other elements of the sentence identical. Control words
and visual targets were identical to those used in Experiment 1. All other procedures were
identical to Experiment 1.
Unlike selection of central semantic features where there was a great deal of consistency
among subjects, it is unclear whether the peripheral features selected were aspects of a word’s
meaning that the majority of subjects believed to be less typical, harder to verbalize, or simply
not true of the concept. It is also unclear whether central feature sentences were actually
more contextually constraining than peripheral feature sentences. To address these potential
concerns, a normative study was conducted to determine whether the central and peripheral
sentence contexts actually biased subordinate meanings, and whether there were differences
in contextual strength between neutral, central and peripheral sentence contexts. A total of 64
subjects were each presented a written list containing the neutral, centrally biased, and peripherally biased sentences used in the study that included a paraphrase of dominant and subordinate meanings. Subjects were instructed to read each sentence and to first decide if the sentence
was neutral with respect to either meaning of the homonym. If subjects believed that a particular meaning was uniquely biased by a sentence context, they were instructed to indicate what
meaning was biased and to decide how strongly they felt it did so according to a 5-point scale.
A rating of 5 indicated that subjects felt that the sentence strongly biased a particular meaning,
and a rating of 1 indicated that the sentence weakly biased a particular meaning. Presentation
of materials was counterbalanced such that there was no repetition of homonyms for a given
subject, and all subjects received comparable instances of each sentence type.
For the neutral sentences used in Experiment 1, 91% of subjects rated the sentences as
neutral. In contrast, only 6% of subjects rated central feature sentences used in Experiment
2 as neutral, and 12% of subjects rated peripheral feature sentences used in Experiment 3 as
neutral. These proportions were all significantly different from one another according to ttests (90% vs 96%, t ⫽ 2.8, p ⬍ .01, central and peripheral sentences respectively; 38% vs
96%, t(63) ⫽ 21.7, p ⬍ .01, neutral and central sentences respectively; 38% vs 90%,
t(63) ⫽ 20.2, p ⬍ .01, neutral and peripheral sentences, respectively). Additionally, of the
94% of subjects who reported that central feature sentences were biased, 96% reported a subordinate bias, whereas of the 88% of subjects who reported that peripheral feature sentences were biased, only 90% reported a subordinate bias. This difference was statistically significant (t(63) ⫽ 2.7, p ⬍ .01). Finally, the average contextual strength rating for subjects
DIFFERENCES IN CONTEXT SENSITIVITY
375
who reported sentences as having a subordinate bias was 4.2 for central feature sentences,
and 3.7 for peripheral feature sentences (t(63) ⫽ 4.2, p ⬍ .01). To summarize, central feature
contexts were judged as biasing the subordinate meaning more often, and more strongly that
either the peripheral or neutral contexts. Peripheral feature contexts also biased the subordinate
meaning to a substantial degree compared to the neutral contexts. Given these results, it is
possible to conclude that both central and peripheral sentence contexts constrained the subordinate meaning, and central sentence contexts were more constraining than peripheral sentence
contexts.
Results
A three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for RT and
accuracy data across subjects (F1) and items (F2) with sentence type (homonym-bearing or control word-bearing), target type (dominant or subordinate), and visual field (LVF or RVF) as factors. Standard deviations were
computed for each subject, and responses less than or greater than 3 standard
deviations of a subject’s mean RT were omitted from all analyses. Accuracy
and RT data are depicted in Table 2.
A main effect of target location indicated that RTs to targets presented to
the LVF were slower than for targets presented to the RVF (818 vs 802,
respectively; 16 ms difference). This was significant in the item analysis
(F2(1, 63) ⫽ 5.2, MSe ⫽ 18772.3, p ⬍ .05), and missed significance in the
subject analysis (F1(1, 55) ⫽ 3.4, MSe ⫽ 8511.8, p ⫽ .06). A main effect
of target type indicated that RTs to targets related to subordinate meanings
were faster than RTs to targets related to dominant meanings (801 vs 818
ms, respectively; 17 ms difference). This was significant in the subject (F1(1,
55) ⫽ 5.4, MSe ⫽ 5949.7, p ⬍ .05), but not the item analysis (F2(1, 63) ⬍
1). Finally, RTs were faster for homonym-bearing than for control sentences
(801 vs 819 ms, respectively; 18 ms priming effect; F1(1, 55) ⫽ 4.7,
MSe ⫽ 7743.4, p ⬍ .05; F2(1, 63) ⫽ 3.7, MSe ⫽ 9369.9, p ⫽ .05). There
were no significant interactions in the subject or item analyses.
TABLE 2
Reaction Time Data for Experiment 2 as a Function of Visual Field of Target Presentation,
Sentence Type, and Target Type
Experiment 2: Central feature context, target presented at offset
Sentence type
Right visual field (LH)
Target type
Homonym-bearing
Control
Dominant
Subordinate
Left visual field (RH)
Target type
Dominant
Subordinate
796 (90)
785 (90)
821 (84)
804 (86)
Priming
25 ms
19 ms
Sentence type
Homonym-bearing
Control
Priming
822 (90)
800 (85)
834 (80)
815 (82)
12 ms
15 ms
Note. Accuracy data are presented in parentheses.
376
DEBRA TITONE
Lexical decision accuracy was greater for RVF presentation than for LVF
presentation (87.5 vs 84.3% correct, respectively; F1(1, 55) ⫽ 5.5, MSe ⫽
214.5, p ⬍ .05; F2(1, 63) ⫽ 10.5, MSe ⫽ 148.7, p ⬍ .01). In addition,
accuracy was greater for homonym-bearing than for control sentences (88.7
vs 83.1% correct, respectively; F1(1, 55) ⫽ 15.4, MSe ⫽ 232.6, p ⬍ .05;
F2(1, 63) ⫽ 16.9, MSe ⫽ 241.4, p ⬍ .01). The main effect for target type
was not significant in either the subjects or the items analysis. Finally, there
was a significant interaction between sentence type and target type (F1(1,
55) ⫽ 5.4, MSe ⫽ 151.0, p ⬍ .05; F2(1, 63) ⫽ 4.5, MSe ⫽ 236.7, p ⬍
.05). The difference in accuracy between homonym-bearing and control sentences was larger for dominant targets than for subordinate targets (89.9 vs
81.3 % correct for dominant targets following homonym-bearing and control
sentences, respectively; 86.6 vs 83.9% correct for subordinate targets following homonym-bearing and control sentences respectively). No other effects
in the accuracy data were significant.
Discussion
Experiment 2 showed that responses were slower and less accurate for
LVF target presentation than for RVF target presentation. This is consistent
with Experiment 1 and a large body of literature suggesting a LH superiority
for processing linguistic stimuli (e.g., Hellige, 1993). Accordingly, linguistic
stimuli presented to the LVF (i.e., RH) are predicted to be processed more
slowly than linguistic stimuli presented to the RVF (i.e., LH). Experiment
2 also showed that responses to targets related to subordinate meanings were
faster than targets related to dominant meanings, irrespective of whether sentences contained homonyms or control words. Given that this was not found
in Experiment 1, it is likely that some aspect of the sentence contexts (which
were identical for the experimental and control conditions) primed subordinate targets more than dominant targets. This result supports the need for
prime controls in experiments designed to measure changes in meaning activation using prime stimuli embedded in surrounding contexts.
In terms of semantic priming, Experiment 2 showed activation in both
hemispheres of dominant and subordinate meanings at homonym offset for
contexts emphasizing central semantic features of subordinate meanings.
This contrasts with Experiment 1 where only dominant meanings were activated in neutral sentence contexts. Taken together, these results support a
context-sensitive model of homonym processing in which contextual
strength interacts with meaning dominance to influence homonym activation.
Furthermore, these results indicate that both hemispheres show context sensitivity to central semantic relationships existing between sentence contexts
and subordinate meanings. This sensitivity brought about early activation of
subordinate meanings, although activation of dominant meanings was not
dampened.
To summarize, Experiment 2 showed that activation of subordinate mean-
DIFFERENCES IN CONTEXT SENSITIVITY
377
ings was influenced by contexts that biased central semantic features of subordinate meanings for both hemispheres. This suggests that both hemispheres
are sensitive to central semantic relationships and can use this information
during homonym processing. Experiment 3 was conducted to determine
whether hemispheric equivalency extends to contexts that bias peripheral
semantic features of subordinate meanings. Based upon prior work showing
hemispheric differences in lexical-semantic processing, only the RH should
detect and use peripheral semantic relationships to generate activation for
subordinate meanings. The LH, in contrast, should be insensitive to peripherally biased contexts.
EXPERIMENT 3: PERIPHERAL FEATURE CONTEXTS
Method
Subjects
A total of 56 right-handed students at the State University of New York at Binghamton
received credit towards an Introductory Psychology course for their participation. Handedness
was assessed with the preference questionnaire used in Experiments 1 and 2. All subjects were
native speakers of English and had no hearing or visual impairments.
Stimuli and Procedure
Stimulus materials for Experiment 3 were derived from sentences used in Experiment 1.
Peripheral features of subordinate meanings were selected using data from the normative procedure described in Experiment 2. Following selection of peripheral semantic features, context
clauses that biased peripheral features were constructed to precede neutral sentences used in
Experiment 1 (e.g., ‘‘Because it lasted all night, they really liked the BALL’’). Control sentences were constructed by replacing homonyms with control words while keeping all other
elements of the sentences identical. Control words and visual targets were identical to those
used in Experiments 1 and 2. All other aspects of experimental procedure were identical to
Experiments 1 and 2.
Results
A three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for RT and
accuracy data across subjects (F1) and items (F2) with sentence type (homonym-bearing or control word-bearing), target type (dominant or subordinate), and visual field (LVF or RVF) as factors. Standard deviations were
computed for each subject, and responses less than or greater than three
standard deviations of an individual’s mean RT were omitted from all analyses. Two items were discarded from all analyses due to experimenter error.
Accuracy and RT data are depicted in Table 3.
There were no significant main effects or two-way interactions in RT.
However, a significant three-way interaction revealed an opposite pattern of
priming effects for RVF and LVF target position (F1(1, 55) ⫽ 7.2, MSe ⫽
5501.7, p ⬍ .01; F2(1, 61) ⫽ 5.7, MSe ⫽ 8905.4, p ⬍ .05). In the RVF,
378
DEBRA TITONE
TABLE 3
Reaction Time Data for Experiment 3 as a Function of Visual Field of Target Presentation,
Sentence Type, and Target Type
Experiment 3: Peripheral feature context, target presented at offset
Sentence type
Right visual field (LH)
Target type
Homonym-bearing
Control
Priming
Dominant
Subordinate
29 ms
⫺13 ms
Left visual field (RH)
Target type
Dominant
Subordinate
778 (92)
801 (88)
807 (88)
788 (88)
Sentence type
Homonym-bearing
Control
Priming
807 (89)
799 (82)
793 (79)
819 (83)
⫺14 ms
20 ms
Note. Accuracy data are presented in parentheses.
priming was found for dominant targets (29 ms) while slight reversal in priming was found for subordinate targets (⫺13 ms). In contrast, the LVF showed
slight reversal in priming for dominant targets (⫺14 ms) while priming was
found for subordinate targets (20 ms). This suggests a remarkable asymmetry
of the cerebral hemispheres in sensitivity to peripheral semantic features.
The three-way interaction was investigated in a series of sub-ANOVAs.
A sub-ANOVA conducted for RVF presentation showed a significant twoway interaction between target type and sentence type (F1(1, 55) ⫽ 4.2,
MSe ⫽ 5873.5, p ⬍ .05; F2(1, 61) ⫽ 2.6, MSe ⫽ 9497.3, p ⫽ .11). This
is supported by t-tests showing a significant difference between dominant
targets following homonym-bearing and control sentences (t1(55) ⫽ 2.4,
p ⬍ .05; t2(61) ⫽ 2.2, p ⬍ .05; 31 ms priming effect). There were no significant differences in RT to subordinate targets (t1(55) ⬍ 1; t2(61) ⬍ 1).
A sub-ANOVA was also conducted for LVF target presentation. The twoway interaction was non-significant but showed a pattern of data that was
in the opposite direction of the results for RVF target location. First, unlike
what was found in Experiment 1 with neutral contexts and Experiment 2
with central feature contexts, there was no facilitation for dominant targets
following homonym-bearing sentences, (t1(55) ⬍ 1; t2(61) ⬍ 1). Second,
although the two-way interaction for LVF target location was not significant,
one-tailed t-tests suggested differences between subordinate targets following homonym-bearing and control sentences (t1(55) ⫽ 1.6, p ⬍ .05;
t2(61) ⫽ 1.6, p ⬍ .05; 20 ms priming effect).
In the accuracy data, there was a significant main effect of target location
(F1(1, 55) ⫽ 10.5, MSe ⫽ 316.6, p ⬍ .01; F2(1, 61) ⫽ 18.6, MSe ⫽ 202.7,
p ⬍ .01) showing accuracy to be greater for RVF target presentation than
DIFFERENCES IN CONTEXT SENSITIVITY
379
for LVF target presentation (88.8 vs 83.3% correct, respectively). A significant main effect of sentence type (F1(1, 55) ⫽ 6.8, MSe ⫽ 160.7, p ⬍ .05;
F2(1, 61) ⫽ 6.9, MSe ⫽ 187.3, p ⬍ .05) showed that targets following
homonym-bearing sentences were more accurate than targets following control sentences (87.6 vs 84.5% correct, respectively). A significant twoway interaction between target type and sentence type (F1(1, 55) ⫽ 10.7,
MSe ⫽ 159.5, p ⬍ .01; F2(1, 61) ⫽ 11.5, MSe ⫽ 180.3, p ⬍ .01) showed
the difference between targets following homonym-bearing and control sentences to be greater for dominant targets than for subordinate targets (90.4 vs
83.3% correct for dominant targets following homonym-bearing and control
sentences, respectively; 84.8 vs 85.6% correct for subordinate targets following homonym-bearing and control sentences, respectively). No other effects
were significant.
One potential concern with the interpretation of the data in Experiment 3
is that the pattern of priming for the accuracy data in the LVF differs from
the pattern of priming for the RT data. Specifically, responses to dominant
targets for LVF presentation show that accuracy is greater for homonymbearing sentences compared to control sentences, whereas speed appears
slower. Because the existence of a speed-accuracy trade-off clouds interpretation of this condition, the data were reanalyzed after removing the data of
participants whose responses contributed substantially to the speed accuracy
trade-off (i.e., 14 participants having dominant priming effects in LVF target
accuracy were greater than or equal to 25 percentage points). If the pattern
of RT priming for the LVF target presentation condition is because of a
speed accuracy trade-off, eliminating these subjects should profoundly alter
the resulting overall pattern of RT for both visual fields. Eliminating these
participants, however, did not change the overall pattern of data or the statistical significance of the three way interaction ( p ⬍ .05). Consequently, interpretations regarding the priming data for LVF target presentation are not
affected by a speed-accuracy trade-off. Table 4 depicts the pattern of data
for this post-hoc analysis.
Discussion
Similar to Experiments 1 and 2, Experiment 3 showed a LH advantage in
accuracy. In terms of homonym priming, Experiment 3 showed a difference
between the hemispheres for peripheral feature contexts. In the LH, priming
effects are similar to those found in Experiment 1 for a neutral context. Only
dominant meanings were activated at offset despite the presence of sentence
contexts favoring subordinate meanings. This suggests that the LH is insensitive to peripheral semantic relationships and initially processes a peripherally
biased context as neutral. In contrast, the pattern of priming in the RH more
closely resembled the results of Experiment 2 where activation of contextually appropriate subordinate meanings was found. This suggests that the RH
380
DEBRA TITONE
TABLE 4
Reaction Time Data for Experiment 3 as a Function of Visual Field of Target Presentation,
Sentence Type, and Target Type
Experiment 3—Post-hoc analysis: Peripheral feature context, target presented at offset
Sentence type
Right visual field (LH)
Target type
Homonym-bearing
Control
Priming
Dominant
Subordinate
Left visual field (RH)
Target type
Dominant
Subordinate
767 (92)
782 (88)
794 (89)
777 (88)
27 ms
⫺5 ms
Sentence type
Homonym-bearing
Control
Priming
799 (88)
778 (82)
787 (87)
809 (84)
⫺12 ms
31 ms
Note. Accuracy data are presented in parentheses. Participants having LVF dominant accuracy priming greater than or equal to 25 are excluded from the analysis (n ⫽ 14).
is sensitive to peripheral semantic relationships and is consistent with research examining lateralized priming effects in neurologically impaired and
intact subjects (e.g., Chiarello, 1991; Brownell, 1988).
Taken together, the results of Experiments 1, 2, and 3 suggest that the
influence of contextual constraint differs for the cerebral hemispheres. Only
the LH data from Experiments 2 and 3 show differences in homonym activation due to changes in contextual strength. In contrast, the RH data from
Experiments 2 and 3 show no difference in homonym activation across
strongly biased contexts (i.e., central feature contexts) and weakly biased
contexts (i.e., peripheral feature contexts). Both strong and weak sentence
contexts are equally effective at influencing homonym activation in the RH
whereas, consistent with a context-sensitive model, only strong sentence contexts effectively influence homonym activation in the LH.
To enable statistical comparison of priming effects across experiments,
two between-experiment ANOVAs were conducted. In these analyses, it was
important to determine the degree to which the addition of central and peripheral feature sentence contexts influenced the pattern of priming relative to
the neutral sentences. Therefore, the results of Experiments 2 and 3, where
sentence contexts were semantically biased, were individually compared to
the results of Experiment 1, where sentence contexts were semantically neutral. In the analysis comparing Experiments 1 and 2 (i.e., neutral and central
feature contexts), there was a significant interaction between experiment and
target type in which RT for dominant targets was faster than that for subordinate targets in Experiment 1, but was slower than that for subordinate targets
in Experiment 2 (F(1, 110) ⫽ 5.9, MSe ⫽ 7463, p ⬍ .05). This interaction
is consistent with the notion that semantic overlap between the subordinate-
DIFFERENCES IN CONTEXT SENSITIVITY
381
biased sentence contexts and the targets themselves facilitated RT regardless
of whether the homonym was present or not. Also significant, and more
important to interpretation of the pattern of priming across experiments, was
the interaction between experiment, target type, and sentence type (F(1, 110)
⫽ 4.9, MSe ⫽ 8877, p ⬍ .05). This interaction supports the conclusion that
only dominant meanings were primed in Experiment 1 (neutral context), and
that both dominant and subordinate meanings were primed in Experiment 2
(central feature context).
In the analysis comparing Experiments 1 and 3 (i.e., neutral and peripheral
feature contexts), there was again a significant interaction between experiment, target type, and sentence type (F(1, 110) ⫽ 6.5, MSe ⫽ 6296, p ⬍
.05), however, this was superseded by the significant interaction between
experiment, target type, sentence type, and visual field (F(1, 110) ⫽ 5.1,
MSe ⫽ 4621, p ⬍ .05). The higher-order interaction reflects the difference
in dominant and subordinate priming across Experiments 1 and 3 in which
only dominant meanings were primed in Experiment 1 for both visual fields
and Experiment 3 for the RVF-LH, whereas only the subordinate meaning
was primed in Experiment 3 for the LVF-RH. Taken together, the results
from these analyses are consistent with the qualitative interpretation offered
for the data in Experiments 1, 2, and 3.
One aspect of the RH results that remains curious, however, is that meaning dominance was overridden for sentences that biased peripheral semantic
features (Experiment 3), but not for sentences that biased central semantic
features (Experiment 2). One possible explanation is that the RH is more
sensitive to peripheral semantic relationships than central semantic relationships. Although counter-intuitive, this position is hinted by previous data
examining hemispheric differences. For instance, Rodel et al. (1992) reported that subjects recognized distant associations better than close associations when words were presented to the LVF (e.g., wages–work and sleep–
death, close and distant relationships, respectively) (see also Drews, 1984;
Brownell et al., 1984). Further, semantic priming studies also show an insensitivity to close semantic relationships in the RH (Abernethy & Coney, 1993,
with intact subjects; Henik, Dronkers, Knight, & Osimani, 1993, with LH
and RH brain damaged subjects). However, there are many studies that have
not shown this result (e.g., Beeman et al., 1994; Chiarello & Richards, 1992;
Nakagawa, 1991). Clearly, a closer examination of RH processing of close
semantic relationships is needed before firm conclusions can be made.
There are a number of other potential concerns with the results of Experiment 3. First, the pattern of priming for the RH appears to be a function of
differences in RT following control sentences rather than differences in RT
following homonym-bearing sentences. If priming reflects facilitation due
to the presence, compared to the absence, of homonyms, one might expect
more consistency in RT for targets following control sentences than for targets following homonym-bearing sentences (as in Experiment 1). Conse-
382
DEBRA TITONE
quently, LVF presentation data should be viewed with caution. In contrast,
the control data for RVF presentation follow the pattern that was found in
Experiment 2, that is, subordinate related targets tend to be faster than dominant related targets. This may be a function of the subordinate context influencing subordinate targets, independent of the homonym.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The present study investigated how the cerebral hemispheres differentially
process homonyms in context. In Experiment 1, neutral prime sentences were
presented over headphones and visual targets related to dominant and subordinate meanings were presented laterally immediately following the acoustic
offset of the homonym. The results showed priming for dominant meanings
but not subordinate meanings in both hemispheres. In Experiment 2, for
prime sentences biasing central semantic features of subordinate meanings,
the results showed priming for subordinate and dominant meanings in both
hemispheres. Finally, in Experiment 3, for prime sentences biasing peripheral semantic features of subordinate meanings, the results showed priming
for subordinate meanings when sentence contexts biased peripheral features
of subordinate meanings only in the RH. The LH only showed activation of
contextually inappropriate dominant meanings.
Taken together, these results suggest that (1) both hemispheres are sensitive to meaning dominance in processing homonyms in neutral contexts,
(2) both hemispheres are sensitive to sentence contexts that emphasize central semantic features, and (3) the RH is more sensitive to sentence contexts
that emphasize peripheral semantic features. As such, these results from Experiments 1, 2, and 3 are consistent with evidence from divided visual field
research (e.g., Chiarello & Richards, 1992; Beeman et al., 1994), and research examining LH and RH damaged adults (e.g., Brownell, 1988). In
addition, they support a model of context-sensitive model language comprehension in which the left and right cerebral hemispheres differentially partition their involvement in the lexical-semantic processes necessary for successful language comprehension.
Given evidence of hemispheric differences in contextual sensitivity, it is
important to consider the cognitive demands enabling the full range of language comprehension that render a two-structure semantic system somewhat
useful. In a very broad sense, comprehension requires the successful management of two equally important, yet conflicting processing requirements. The
first is contextual sensitivity. To fully understand the intended meanings of
utterances within particular communicative situations, one must detect and
utilize contextual information that often emerges slowly and/or is weak. This
requires a sensitivity to a wide range of semantic relationships and an ability
to maintain potentially relevant information in memory. The second comprehension requirement is that of ambiguity resolution. Virtually all elements
DIFFERENCES IN CONTEXT SENSITIVITY
383
of language (e.g., phonemes, words, phrases, and sentences) may be indeterminate, and one critical step toward comprehension is to quickly reduce multiple interpretations to specific interpretations. This requires that some linguistic elements be selected for further processing, and others be quickly
suppressed. Given that misinterpretations often occur (either because comprehenders maintain irrelevant information in memory, or because relevant
information is erroneously suppressed) it is often necessary to revise initial
interpretations once formulated.
The results of the present study provide additional evidence to the claim
that the RH contributes to the broad range of semantic sensitivity necessary
for comprehending certain aspects of language. Other evidence has also
shown a reduced RH ability in inhibiting or suppressing activated elements
of word meaning (e.g., Chiarello, 1991). For instance, Burgess and Simpson
(1988), using a divided visual field task with single word prime-target stimuli, found that the RH maintained activation of dominant and subordinate
meanings of homonyms over time, whereas, the LH suppressed activation
of subordinate meanings over time. These results are consistent with those
of Faust and Gernsbacher (1996) who, using a divided visual field paradigm,
also found a reduced ability in the RH to suppress contextually inappropriate
information. Furthermore, the divided visual field work is also consistent
with what has been found for RH and LH damaged adults (Burgess & Cushman, 1990; Hagoort, 1993; Hagoort et al., 1996). In general, only LH damaged adults show impairments in language behaviors requiring the suppression of information. The results of the present study do not necessarily speak
to this issue of suppression, however, because visual targets were only presented immediately following the offset of the homonym primes. To speak
to the issue of suppression, it would have been necessary to track activation
of dominant and subordinate meanings over time, across a range of interstimulus intervals.
Given the existence of semantic indeterminacy at many different levels
of language, one reasonable question is whether comprehension processes
applicable to lexical ambiguity extend to the processing of other forms of
semantic indeterminacy. Such semantic indeterminacy may also arise when
the intended reference of a word is not part of its literal meaning representation, and must be created on-line (e.g., ‘‘The HAM SANDWHICH needs
mustard,’’ ham sandwich referring to a customer eating a ham sandwich;
Clark & Gerrig, 1983). Similar to lexical ambiguity resolution in context,
comprehension of ‘‘contextual expressions’’ requires the simultaneous appraisal of word-internal properties (i.e., relevant aspects of the meaning representation) and the current context that carries the expression. This also
extends to the comprehension problem posed by elements of figurative language such as idioms and metaphors. Although there has been much debate
concerning the computational priority of literal and figurative meaning, it
has been demonstrated that literal word meanings are activated throughout
384
DEBRA TITONE
the time-course of idiom and metaphor comprehension (e.g., Blasko & Connine, 1993; Cacciari & Tabossi, 1988; Titone & Connine, 1994a).
Hemispheric differences in processing different classes of ambiguity such
as nonliteral lanaguage are likely to emerge, as they do in the present study,
as a function of the kind of semantic overlap that exists between word meaning and the context in which an expression occurs, or additionally, between
literal components of a phrase. Given a RH sensitivity to peripheral semantic
relationships, it is likely that metaphors whose topic and vehicle share peripheral semantic features will be more easily processed in the RH than in
the LH. In contrast, hemispheric differences should not arise for the processing of metaphors whose topic and vehicle share central semantic features. This may also extend to comprehension of idiomatic expressions.
Compositional idioms, whose literal word meanings are semantically related
to idiomatic meanings (e.g., save your skin), may be more easily processed
in the LH than noncompositional idioms, whose literal word meanings overlap with idiomatic meanings peripherally (e.g., kick the bucket, both kicking
and dying are sudden actions) (Titone & Connine, 1994b; in press). Although
much of the current work examining nonliteral language in RH damaged
adults points to a general deficit in the processing of such expressions, the
exact nature of such deficits is less clear.
The present study demonstrates that the left and right cerebral hemispheres
differentially process lexical ambiguity in context. This research provides
evidence for a context-sensitive model of homonym processing in which
context sensitivity differs for the LH and the RH. It is likely that hemispheric
differences in context sensitivity, in addition to differences in the ability to
inhibit contextually inappropriate meanings, enable the full range of language processing necessary to resolve semantic indeterminacy at many levels, and to perceive the semantic relationships between words within a sentence, and sentences within discourse. Future work using a range of
paradigms and techniques from cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience will surely provide many new answers concerning the interplay between brain systems in language use.
385
DIFFERENCES IN CONTEXT SENSITIVITY
APPENDIX A
Materials Used in Experiment 1
Visual targets
Sentence
Control words
Dominant
Subordinate
They really liked the ball.
Everyone went to that bank.
Larry was annoyed by the bark.
He easily saw the beam.
Tom was unhappy about the bill.
Ben finally noticed the bluff.
She barely noticed the bug.
Helen looked for the cardinal.
Debbie liked the case.
Sarah quickly noticed her charm.
They were happy about the club.
They easily spotted the coach.
Barbara examined the corn.
There were many TV cameras at the court.
Everyone noticed the crab.
She really enjoyed the date.
Sam liked the deck.
Everyone remembered the deed.
They all looked at the diamond.
Everyone heard the fan.
She couldn’t see the figure.
Betty searched for the file.
Danny needed the foil.
Joan needed to clean her glasses.
Mike didn’t like the grade.
She wanted to get rid of that habit.
Nobody liked the ham.
Julie examined the horn.
We really liked the jam.
He had a bad joint.
Bob kept losing the key.
She clearly saw the litter.
He closely examined the log.
She closely examined the match.
Jane wanted to look at the mold.
George examined his nails.
Peter needed a new organ.
Erik saw the pack.
They always ignored that page.
Kate examined his palm.
They knew it was a small panel.
It was a very old pen.
Doreen noticed the perch.
Rose tried to avoid the pit.
Susan wanted to buy the plant.
They really liked the plot.
movie
trail
glass
cable
news
dogs
microphone
author
book
gift
mace
boat
cut
in the room
mayor
dip
chair
paper
screen
child
text
cotton
a license
kitchen
trip
shirt
boy
object
movie
pain
his place
toddler
text
show
machine
shelves
speaker
group
dog
collection
group
shed
lamb
chips
stock
view
round
money
dog
laser
check
lie
fly
bird
bag
wit
group
team
cob
case
lobster
time
cards
good
jewel
cool
shape
folder
tin
see
letter
vice
big
honk
jelly
smoke
lock
trash
cabin
fire
slime
finger
liver
back
paper
hand
wall
pencil
sit
hole
green
story
dance
river
tree
wood
law
cliff
spy
sin
lawyer
gold
bat
horse
foot
tennis
grouch
fruit
boat
title
base
club
math
tool
sword
drink
slope
robe
actor
antler
band
knee
note
kitten
record
game
pattern
hammer
piano
animal
boy
tree
judge
pig
fish
peach
power
land
386
DEBRA TITONE
APPENDIX A— Continued
Visual targets
Sentence
Jennifer hated that type of poker.
Kate easily saw the port.
George inspected the pot.
He was happy about the press.
He knew it was a good punch.
They finally broke the racket.
They were very old records.
Jen easily saw the ruler.
We clearly saw the school.
It was a very bad sentence.
Lisa had three spades.
Paul was pleased with the spring.
Tom finally used his staff.
She clearly saw the star.
Harry didn’t like the suit.
Fred closely examined the table.
We really enjoyed the toast.
They really liked the yarn.
Control words
wood
olives
object
detergent
beer
store
papers
man
children
decision
hats
sheets
boots
child
game
book
card
news
Dominant
cards
ship
pan
news
hit
ball
tape
inch
bus
word
ace
summer
work
movie
tie
chair
jam
knit
Subordinate
rod
wine
weed
iron
bowl
mob
event
king
fish
jail
shovel
coil
stick
sky
case
graph
cheers
fable
APPENDIX B
Materials Used in Experiment 2 (Control Words and Visual Targets Are
Identical to Experiment 1)
Sentence
Because it featured a great orchestra, they really liked the ball.
Because it was a good fishing spot, everyone went to that bank.
Because it scraped his hand, Larry was annoyed by the bark.
Since it supported the roof of the house, he easily saw the beam.
Hoping the President would use the veto, Tom was unhappy about the bill.
While walking on the sandy beach, Ben finally noticed the bluff.
As it recorded the entire conversation, she barely noticed the bug.
Admiring a strong religious viewpoint, Helen looked for the cardinal.
Detailing the history of her client, Debbie liked the case.
Looking at the new bracelet, Sarah quickly noticed her charm.
Because it was a very effective weapon, they were happy about the club.
While it transported the prince to his wedding, they easily spotted the coach.
Initially believing it was a bunion, Barbara examined the corn.
Since the championship game was about to begin, there were many TV cameras at the
court.
DIFFERENCES IN CONTEXT SENSITIVITY
Loudly complaining about the service, everyone noticed the crab.
Since it tasted so sweet, she really enjoyed the date.
Being made of the finest mahogany wood, Sam liked the deck.
Showing her to be the legal owner, everyone remembered the deed.
Noticing the shortstop was at bat, they all looked at the diamond.
Screaming cheers for the football team, everyone heard the fan.
Numerically depicting last year’s income, she couldn’t see the figure.
Since she wanted to groom her nails, Betty searched for the file.
Since it was a formidable weapon, Danny needed the foil.
Since she had just served milkshakes to her guests, Joan needed to clean her glasses.
Since his car had trouble climbing hills, Mike didn’t like the grade.
Because she wasn’t a nun anymore, she wanted to get rid of that habit.
Since he constantly forgot his lines, nobody liked the ham.
Since it was taken from a very large deer, Julie examined the horn.
Because it included excellent musicians, we really liked the jam.
Ever since he broke his shoulder, he had a bad joint.
Singing out of tune for most of the concert, Bob kept losing the key.
While watching it play with the older dogs, she clearly saw the litter.
Since it recounted the ship’s history, he closely examined the log.
Since they were great tennis players, she closely examined the match.
Having produced many clay figurines, Jane wanted to look at the mold.
Since they kept falling out of the wall, George examined his nails.
Since the music sounded extremely out of tune, Peter needed a new organ.
Consisting of more than a dozen wolves, Erik saw the pack.
Since he never followed orders correctly, they always ignored that page.
Being an expert about tropical vegetation, Kate examined his palm.
Since the fate of the man’s job was quickly decided, they knew it was a small panel.
Not housing pigs for years, it was a very old pen.
Having been cooked with a delicious lemon sauce, Doreen noticed the perch.
Since she only wanted to eat the sweet fruit, Rose tried to avoid the pit.
Having been an employee for years, Susan wanted to buy the plant.
Since their house overlooked the valley, they really liked the plot.
Being unable to tend to the fireplace, Jennifer hated that type of poker.
Being in front of the liquor cabinet, Kate easily saw the port.
Being able to recognize dangerous drugs, George inspected the pot.
Since he got the wrinkles out of his shirt, he was happy about the press.
Since he drank so much of it, he knew it was a good punch.
After it illegally operated for years, they finally broke the racket.
Showing all the transactions in the account, they were very old records.
Since he was a very prominent leader, Jen easily saw the ruler.
As they swam in synchrony near the reef, we clearly saw the school.
Because the crime was so awful, it was a very bad sentence.
Because she worked in her garden every weekend, Lisa had three spades.
Making the bed much more comfortable, Paul was pleased with the spring.
Having sprained his ankle last week, Tom finally used his staff.
Since he acted in a number of films, she clearly saw the star.
Since he thought the judge was unfair, Harry didn’t like the suit.
Since the numbers didn’t add up, Fred closely examined the table.
Honoring our parents anniversary, we really enjoyed the toast.
Since it took all afternoon to tell the tale, they really liked the yarn.
387
388
DEBRA TITONE
APPENDIX C
Materials Used in Experiment 3 (Control Words and Visual Targets Are
Identical to Experiment 1)
Sentence
Because it lasted the entire night, they really liked the ball.
Because it was easy to walk on, everyone went to that bank.
Because it was difficult to clean up, Larry was annoyed by the bark.
Since it was very large in size, he easily saw the beam.
Being unfair towards the union, Tom was unhappy about the bill.
While looking out the window, Ben finally noticed the bluff.
Since it was attached to the wall, she barely noticed the bug.
Having enjoyed his company before, Helen looked for the cardinal.
Since it was very big, Debbie liked the case.
Since it was very big, Sarah quickly noticed her charm.
Because it was easy to carry, they were happy about the club.
While it was being fixed at the shop, they easily spotted the coach.
Since she left her bandage at home, Barbara examined the corn.
Since the players were going to make a statement, there were many TV cameras at the
court.
As she boarded the bus, everyone noticed the crab.
Since it was in her secret recipe, she really enjoyed the date.
Being cheap to build, Sam liked the deck.
Being printed on gold leaf, everyone remembered the deed.
Noticing that the field was not well-kept, they all looked at the diamond.
Yelling to his friend, everyone heard the fan.
Having been written into the book by the child, she couldn’t see the figure.
Since it was hidden in her pocket, Betty searched for the file.
Since it was extremely valuable, Danny needed the foil.
Since the dishwasher had been broken, Joan needed to clean her glasses.
Since the roads were slick, Mike didn’t like the grade.
Since it no longer fit her well around the waist, she wanted to get rid of that habit.
Since he started a fight at the party, nobody liked the ham.
Since it had a very sharp point, Julie examined the horn.
Because it was extremely loud, we really liked the jam.
Since he never did stretching exercises, he had a bad joint.
Lacking any formal training, Bob kept losing the key.
While it busily ate all the food, she clearly saw the litter.
Since it was written in small print, he closely examined the log.
Since many people attended, she closely examined the match.
Having been well designed, Jane wanted to look at the mold.
Since they were very rusty, George examined his nails.
Since his was stored in the attic for years, Peter needed a new organ.
Since it was extremely noisy, Erik saw the pack.
Since he never said much, they always ignored that page.
Wondering if the fertilizer helped, Kate examined his palm.
Since they hadn’t ordered much for lunch, they knew it was a small panel.
Sitting out in the yard for years, it was a very old pen.
Having opened its mouth very wide, Doreen noticed the perch.
Having a really bad tooth, Rose tried to avoid the pit.
Looking for a good investment, Susan wanted to buy the plant.
DIFFERENCES IN CONTEXT SENSITIVITY
389
Since it was a mile wide, they really liked the plot.
Being too heavy to pick up, Jennifer hated that type of poker.
Having been put on the table, Kate easily saw the port.
Since it had grown quite a bit, George inspected the pot.
Since it fit easily in the corner of the room, he was happy about the press.
Since it was his sister’s recipe, he knew it was a good punch.
Due to the newspaper investigation, they finally broke the racket.
Tearing around the edges, they were very old records.
Since he was on the news last night, Jen easily saw the ruler.
As they searched for the next meal, we clearly saw the school.
Being swayed by public opinion, it was a very bad sentence.
Since there was a sale last week, Lisa had three spades.
Being very inexpensive, Paul was pleased with the spring.
Having been stored in the closet, Tom finally used his staff.
Since he stood in the middle of the room, she clearly saw the star.
Being sure he wouldn’t win, Harry didn’t like the suit.
Since the print was so small, Fred closely examined the table.
Since it was so sentimental, we really enjoyed the toast.
Since it was so entertaining, they really liked the yarn.
REFERENCES
Abernethy, M., & Coney, J. 1993. Associative priming in the hemispheres as a function of
SOA. Neuropsychologia, 31, 1397–1409.
Babkoff, H., & Ben-Uriah, Y. 1983. Lexical decision time as a function of visual field and
stimulus probability. Cortex, 19, 13–30.
Barsalou, L. 1982. Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts. Memory and Cognition, 10, 82–93.
Barsalou, L. 1987. The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts.
In U. Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual
factors in categorization (pp. 101–140). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Barsalou, L. 1989. Intraconcept similarity and its implications for interconcept similarity. In
S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 76–121).
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Beeman, M. 1993. Semantic processing in the right hemisphere may contribute to drawing
inferences from discourse. Brain and Language, 44, 80–120.
Beeman, M., Friedman, R., Grafman, J., Perez, E., Diamond, S., & Lindsay, M. 1994. Summation priming and coarse coding in the right hemisphere. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6, 26–45.
Blasko, D. G., & Connine, C. M. 1993. Effects of familiarity and aptness on the processing
of metaphor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition,
19, 295–308.
Boles, D. B. 1985. The effects of display and report order asymmetries on lateralized word
recognition. Brain and Language, 26, 106–116.
Bottini, G., Corcoran, R., Sterzi, R., Paulesu, E., Schenone, P., Scarpa, P., Frackowiak,
R. S. J., & Frith, C. D. 1994. The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of
figurative aspects of language: A positron emission tomography activation study. Brain,
117, 1241–1253.
Brownell, H. H. 1988. Appreciation of metaphoric and connotative word meaning in brain
390
DEBRA TITONE
damaged patients. In C. Chiarello (Ed.), Right hemisphere contributions to lexical semantics. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Brownell, H. H., Carroll, J. J., Rehak, A., & Wingfield, A. 1992. The use of pronoun anaphora
and speaker mood in the interpretation of conversational utterances by right hemisphere
damaged patients. Brain and Language, 43, 121–147.
Brownell, H. H., Potter, H. H., Michelow, D., & Gardner, H. 1984. Sensitivity to lexical
denotation and connotation in brain damaged patients: A double dissociation? Brain and
Language, 22, 253–265.
Bryden, M. 1982. Laterality: Functional asymmetry in the intact brain. San Diego: Academic
Press.
Burgess, C., & Cushman, 1990. Right hemisphere processing of subordinate word meanings:
Evidence from brain damaged patients. Paper presented at the International Neuropsychological Society, Orlando, FL.
Burgess, C., & Simpson, G. B. 1988. Cerebral hemisphere mechanisms in the retrieval of
ambiguous word meanings. Brain and Language, 33, 86–103.
Burgess, C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Seidenberg, M. S. 1989. Context and lexical access: Implications of nonword interference for lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 620–632.
Byrd, M., & Moscovitch, M. 1984. Lateralization of peripherally and centrally masked words
in young and elderly people. Journal of Gerontology, 39, 699–703.
Cacciari, C., & Tabossi, P. 1988. The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and
Language, 27, 668–683.
Chiarello, C. 1985. Hemispheric dynamics in lexical access: Automatic and controlled priming.
Brain and Language, 26, 146–172.
Chiarello, C. 1988. Semantic priming in the intact brain: Separate roles for the right and left
hemispheres? In C. Chiarello (Ed.), Right hemisphere contributions to lexical semantics
(pp. 59–69). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Chiarello, C. 1991. Interpretation of word meanings by the cerebral hemispheres: One is not
enough. In P. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings. LEA Publishers.
Chiarello, C., Burgess, C., Richards, L., & Pollack, A. 1990. Semantic and associative priming
in the cerebral hemispheres: Some words do, some words don’t, . . . sometimes, some
places. Brain and Language, 38, 75–104.
Chiarello, C., & Richards, L. 1992. Another look at category priming in the cerebral hemispheres. Neuropsychologia, 30(4), 381–392.
Chiarello, C., Senehi, J., & Nuding, S. 1987. Semantic priming with abstract and concrete
words: Differential asymmetry may be post-lexical. Brain and Language, 31, 43–60.
Church, K. L., & Chiarello, C. 1988. Lateral eyes or lateralized? Hemiretinal and ocular dominance effects on visual field asymmetries for the lexical decision task. Brain and Cognition, 8, 227–239.
Clark, E. V. 1983. Meanings and Concepts. In J. H. Flavell & E. M. Markman (Eds.), Manual
of child psychology: Vol. 3. Cognitive development (pp. 787–840). New York: Wiley.
Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. 1983. Understanding old words with new meanings. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 591–608.
Dopkins, S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. 1992. Lexical ambiguity and eye fixations in reading:
A test of competing models of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and
Language, 25, 613–624.
Drews, E. 1984. Organization of lexical knowledge in the left and right hemisphere. Paper
presented at the 7th European conference of the International Neuropsychological Society, Aachen.
DIFFERENCES IN CONTEXT SENSITIVITY
391
Duffy, S., Morris, R., & Rayner, K. 1988. Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading.
Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429–446.
Eglin, M. 1987. Interference and priming within and across visual fields in a lexical decision
task. Neuropsychologia, 25, 613–624.
Ellis, H. D., & Young, A. W. 1977. Age-of-acquisition and recognition of nouns presented
in the left and right visual fields: A failed hypothesis. Neuropsychologia, 15, 825–828.
Faust, M., Babkoff, H., & Kravetz, S. 1995. Linguistic processes in the two cerebral hemispheres: Implications for modularity vs. interactionism. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 17, 171–192.
Faust, M., Kravetz, S., & Babkoff, H. 1993. Hemispheric specialization or reading habits:
Evidence from lexical decision research with Hebrew words and sentences. Brain and
Language, 44, 254–263.
Faust, M. E., & Gernsbacher, M. A. 1996. Cerebral mechanisms of suppression of inappropriate information during sentence comprehension. Brain and Language, 53, 234–259.
Foldi, N. S. 1987. Appreciation of pragmatic interpretations of indirect commands: Comparison of right and left-hemisphere brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language, 31, 88–
108.
Fox, P. T., Mintun, M. A., Raichle, M. E., Miezin, E. M., Allman, & Van Essen. 1986. Mapping
human visual cortex with positron emission tomography. Nature, 323, 806–809.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. 1990. Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 181–200.
Greenspan, S. L. 1986. Semantic flexibility and referential specificity of concrete nouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 539–557.
Hagoort, P. 1993. Impairments of lexical-semantic processing in aphasia: Evidence from the
processing of lexical ambiguities. Brain and Language, 45, 189–232.
Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., & Swaab, T. Y. 1996. Lexical-semantic event-related potential
effects in patients with left hemisphere lesions and aphasia, and patients with right hemisphere lesions without aphasia. Brain, 119, 627–649.
Hardyk, C., Chiarello, C., & Dronkers, N. 1985. Orienting attention within visual fields: How
efficient is interhemispheric transfer? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 650–666.
Hardyk, C., Dronkers, N., Chiarello, C., & Simpson, G. V. 1985. The eyes have it: Exposure
times and saccadic movements in visual half-field experiments. Brain and Cognition, 4,
430–438.
Hatta, T. 1977. Hemispheric differences in a categorization matching task. Japanese Journal
of Psychology, 48, 141–147.
Hellige, J. B. 1993. Hemispheric asymmetry: What’s right and what’s left. Cambridge: Harvard
Univ. Press.
Henik, A., Dronkers, N. F., Knight, R. T., & Osmani, A. 1993. Differential effects of semantic
and identity priming in patients with left and right hemisphere lesions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 45–55.
Hirst, W., LeDoux, J., & Stein, S. 1984. Constraints on the processing of indirect speech acts:
Evidence from aphasiology. Brain and Language, 23, 26–33.
Huber, W. 1990. Text comprehension and production in aphasia: Analysis in terms of microand macro-structure. In Y. Joanette & H. Brownell (Eds.), Discourse ability and brain
damage. New York/Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Isseroff, A., Carmon, A., & Nachshon, I. 1974. Dissociation of hemifield reaction time differences from verbal stimulus directionality. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 145–
149.
392
DEBRA TITONE
Joanette, Y., Goulet, P., & Hannequin, D. 1990. Right hemisphere and verbal communication.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Kaplan, J. A., Brownell, H. H., Jacobs, J. R., & Gardner, H. 1990. The effects of right hemisphere damage on conversational remarks. Brain and Language, 38, 315–333.
Katz, J. J., & Fodor, J. A. 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39, 170–210.
Kawamoto, A. H. 1988. Distributed representations of ambiguous words and their resolution
in a connectionist network. In S. L. Small, G. W. Cottrell, & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.),
Lexical ambiguity resolution in the comprehension of human language (pp. 195–228).
Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Kawamoto, A. 1993. Nonlinear dynamics in the resolution of lexical ambiguity: A parallel
distributed processing account. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 474–516.
Kellas, G., Paul, S. T., Martin, M., & Simpson, G. B. 1991. Contextual feature activation and
meaning access. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence. Amsterdam:
North-Holland/Elsevier.
Komatsu, L. K. 1992. Recent views of conceptual structure. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 500–
526.
Marcel, A., & Patterson, K. 1978. Word recognition and production: Reciprocity in clinical
and normal studies. In J. Requin (Ed.), Attention and performance, VII. London: LEA.
Michimata, C. 1987. Lateralized effects of semantic priming in a lexical decision task: Examinations of the time course of semantic activation build-up in the left and right cerebral
hemispheres. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.
Milberg, W., & Blumstein, S. 1981. Lexical decision and aphasia: Evidence for semantic
processing. Brain and Language, 14, 371–385.
Moss, H. E., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. 1993. Access to word meanings during spoken language comprehension: Effects of sentential semantic contexts. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 19, 1254–1276.
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, & Cognition, 21, 863–883.
Murphy, G. L. 1991. Meaning and concepts. In P. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The psychology of
word meanings (pp. 11–35). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Myers, P. S., & Linebaugh, C. W. 1981. Comprehension of idiomatic expressions by righthemisphere-damaged adults. In R. H. Brookshire (Ed.), Clinical aphasiology: Conference
proceedings (pp. 254–261). Minneapolis: BRK Publishers.
Nakagawa, A. 1991. Role of anterior and posterior attention networks in hemispheric asymmetries during lexical decisions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 315–321.
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., Walling, J. R., & Wheeler, J. W. 1980. The South Florida
homograph norms. Behavioral Research Methods and Instrumentation, 12, 16–37.
Ostrin, R., & Tyler, L. 1993. Automatic access to lexical semantics in aphasia: Evidence from
semantic and associative priming. Brain and Language, 45, 147–159.
Paul, S., Kellas, G., Martin, M., & Clark, M. B. 1992. Influence of contextual features on the
activation of ambiguous word meanings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 4, 703–717.
Posner, M. I., & Raichle, M. E. 1994. Images in the mind. New York: Sci. Am.
Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. 1986. Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of
word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory and Cognition, 14,
191–201.
DIFFERENCES IN CONTEXT SENSITIVITY
393
Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. 1989. Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 779–790.
Rodel, M., Cook, N., Regard, M., & Landis, T. 1992. Hemispheric dissociations in judging
semantic relations: Complementarity for close and distant associates. Brain and Language, 43, 448–459.
Schoen, L. M. 1988. Semantic flexibility and core meaning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 113–123.
Schwanenflugel, P. 1991. The psychology of word meanings. New Jersey: LEA.
Schwanenflugel, P., & LaCount, K. 1988. Semantic relatedness and the scope of facilitation
for upcoming words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 14, 344–354.
Schwanenflugel, P., & Shoben, E. 1985. The influence of sentence constraint on the scope of
facilitation for upcoming words. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 232–252.
Seidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., and Bienkowski, M. 1982. Automatic
access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledgebased processing. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 489–537.
Sereno, S. C., Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. 1992. The effects of meaning frequency on processing
lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Psychological Science, 3, 296–
300.
Shannon, B. 1982. Lateralization effects in the perception of Hebrew and English words. Brain
and Language, 17, 107–123.
Silverberg, R. 1979. Shift of visual field preference for English words in native Hebrew speakers. Brain and Language, 8, 184–190.
Simpson, G. B. 1981. Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical
ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 120–136.
Simpson, G. B., & Burgess, C. 1985. Activation and selection processes in the recognition
of ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11(1), 28–39.
Simpson, G.B., & Kreuger, M. 1991. Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence
context. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 627–643.
Tabossi, P. 1988. Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal
of Memory and Language, 27, 324–340.
Tabossi, P., Colombo, L., & Job, R. 1987. Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context
and dominance. Psychological Research, 49, 161–167.
Tabossi, P., & Zardon, F. 1993. Processing ambiguous words in context. Journal of Memory
and Language, 32, 359–372.
Titone, D. A., & Connine, C. M. 1994a. The comprehension of idiomatic expressions: Effects
of predictability and literality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 20, 1126–1138.
Titone, D. A., & Connine, C. M. 1994b. Descriptive norms for 171 idiomatic expressions:
Familiarity, compositionality, predictability, and literality. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 9, 247–270.
Titone, D. A., & Connine, C. M. In press. The compositional and noncompositional nature
of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics.
Tompkins, C., & Matteer, C. 1985. Right hemisphere appreciation of prosodic and linguistic
implications of implicit attitude. Brain and Language, 24, 185–203.
Van Lancker, D. 1990. The neurology of proverbs. Behavioral Neurology, 3, 169–187.
394
DEBRA TITONE
Van Lancker, D. R., & Kempler, D. 1987. Comprehension of familiar phrases by left- but
not right-hemisphere damaged patients. Brain and Language, 32, 265–277.
Whitney, P., McKay, T., Kellas, G., & Emerson, W. A. 1985. Semantic activation of noun
concepts in context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 11, 126–135.
Winner, E., & Gardner, H. 1977. The comprehension of metaphor in brain-damaged patients.
Brain, 100, 717–729.
Young, A. 1982. Methodological theoretical bases. In J. G. Beaumont (Ed.), Divided visual
field studies of cerebral organization. London/New York: Academic Press.