Two experiments investigated the effects of domain knowledge on the resolution of ambiguous words with dominant meanings related to baseball. When placed in a sentence context that strongly biased toward the non-baseball meaning (positive evidence), or excluded the baseball meaning (negative evidence), baseball experts had more difficulty than non-experts resolving the ambiguity. Sentence contexts containing positive evidence supported earlier resolution than did the negative evidence condition for both experts and non-experts. These experiments extend prior findings, and can be seen as support for the reordered access model of lexical access, where both prior knowledge and discourse context influence the availability of word meanings.
AndersonR. C. (1984). Role of the reader’s schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. In AndersonR. C.OsbornJ.TierneyR. J. (Eds.). Learning to read in American schools: Basal readers and content texts (pp. 243–257). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
2.
AndersonR. C.ReynoldsR. E.SchallertD. L.GoetzE. T. (1977). Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 367–381.
3.
BaayenR. H.DavidsonD. J.BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.
4.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.
BinderK. S. (2003). Sentential and discourse topic effects on lexical ambiguity processing: An eye movement examination. Memory & Cognition, 31, 690–702.
7.
BinderK. S.MorrisR. K. (1995). Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: Effects of prior encounter and discourse topic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1186–1196.
8.
BransfordJ. D.JohnsonM. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–726.
9.
BurgessC.SimpsonG. B. (1988). Cerebral hemispheric mechanisms in the retrieval of ambiguous word meanings. Brain and Language, 33, 86–103.
10.
CliftonC.FerreiraF.HendersonJ. M.InhoffA. W.LiversedgeS. P.ReichleE. D.SchotterE. R. (2016). Eye movements in reading and information processing: Keith Rayner’s 40 year legacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 86, 1–19.
11.
CliftonC.Jr.StaubA.RaynerK. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In van GompelR. (Ed.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain (pp. 341–372). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
12.
Colbert-GetzJ.CookA. E. (2013). Revisiting effects of contextual strength on the subordinate bias effect: Evidence from eye movements. Memory & Cognition, 41, 1172–1184.
13.
DoolingD. J.LachmanR. (1971). Effects of comprehension on retention of prose. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 216–222.
14.
DopkinsS.MorrisR. K.RaynerK. (1992). Lexical ambiguity and eye fixations in reading: A test of competing models of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 461–476.
15.
DuffyS. A.MorrisR. K.RaynerK. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429–446.
16.
EricssonK. A.KintschW. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245.
17.
FaustM. E.GernsbacherM. A. (1996). Cerebral mechanisms for suppression of inappropriate information during sentence comprehension. Brain and Language, 53, 234–259.
18.
Fincher-KieferR.PostT. A.GreeneT. R.VossJ. F. (1988). On the role of prior knowledge and task demands in the processing of text. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 416–428.
19.
GernsbacherM. A. (1997). Attenuating interference during comprehension: The role of suppression. In MedinD. L. (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 85–104). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
20.
GunterT. C.WagnerS.FriedericiA. D. (2003). Working memory and lexical ambiguity resolution as revealed by ERPs: A difficult case for activation theories. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 643–657.
21.
KaakinenJ. K.HyönäJ. (2007). Perspective effects in repeated reading: An eye movement study. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1323–1336.
22.
KambeG.RaynerK.DuffyS. A. (2001). Global context effects on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Memory & Cognition, 29, 363–372.
23.
LeeC.FedermeierK. D. (2011). Differential age effects on lexical ambiguity resolution mechanisms. Psychophysiology, 48, 960–972.
24.
LeeC.FedermeierK. D. (2012). Ambiguity’s aftermath: How age differences in resolving lexical ambiguity affect subsequent comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 50, 869–879.
25.
LeinengerM.RaynerK. (2013). Eye movements while reading biased homographs: Effects of prior encounter and biasing context on reducing the subordinate bias effect. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 665–681.
26.
PichertJ. W.AndersonR. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 309–315.
27.
RaynerK.CookA. E.JuhaszB. J.FrazierL. (2006). Immediate disambiguation of lexically ambiguous words during reading: Evidence from eye movements. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 467–482.
28.
RaynerK.PachtJ. M.DuffyS. A. (1994). Effects of prior encounter and global discourse bias on the processing of lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 527–544.
29.
RicksT. R.Turley-AmesK. J.WileyJ. (2007). Effects of working memory capacity on mental set due to domain knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1456–1462.
30.
RicksT. R.WileyJ. (2009). The influence of domain knowledge on the functional capacity of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 519–537.
31.
RoddJ. M.CaiZ. G.BettsH. N.HanbyB.HutchinsonC.AdlerA. (2016). The impact of recent and long-term experience on access to word meanings: Evidence from large-scale internet-based experiments. Journal of Memory and Language, 87, 16–37.
32.
SerenoS. C.O’DonnellP. J.RaynerK. (2006). Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: Investigating the subordinate-bias effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 335–350.
33.
SerenoS. C.PachtJ. M.RaynerK. (1992). The effect of meaning frequency on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Psychological Science, 3, 296–300.
34.
SheridanH.ReingoldE. M.DanemanM. (2009). Using puns to study contextual influences on lexical ambiguity resolution: Evidence from eye movements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 875–881.
35.
ShivdeG.AndersonM. C. (2001). The role of inhibition in meaning selection: Insights from retrieval-induced forgetting. In GorfeinD. S. (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 175–190). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
36.
SimpsonG. B.KangH. (1994). Inhibitory processes in the recognition of homograph meanings. In DagenbachD.CarrT. H. (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language (pp. 359–381). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
37.
SpilichG. J.VesonderG. T.ChiesiH. L.VossJ. F. (1979). Text processing of domain-related information for individuals with high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 18, 275–290.
38.
StitesM. C.FedermeierK. D. (2015). Subsequent to suppression: Downstream comprehension consequences of noun/verb ambiguity in natural reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 1497–1515.
39.
VossJ. F.VesonderG. T.SpilichG. J. (1980). Text generation and recall by high-knowledge and low-knowledge individuals. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19, 651–667.
40.
WileyJ. (1998). Expertise as mental set: The effects of domain knowledge in creative problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 26, 716–730.
41.
WileyJ.RaynerK. (2000). Effects of titles on the processing of text and lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1011–1021.
