Use Your Head to Get the Picture: an Investigation of Working Memory and Idiom Processing
2012
- 84Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage84
- Abstract Views83
- Downloads1
Artifact Description
The present study examines how working memory affects how participants process idiomatic expressions. In Experiment 1, participants read idiomatic, literal and nonsense sentences at an experimenter controlled rate then judged whether or not the sentence made sense. In Experiment 2, participants read idiomatic and literal sentences at their own pace and answered comprehension questions about some of the items. In Experiment 1, the variables of familiarity, decompositionality and final word predictability were associated with faster reaction times for low working memory participants while familiarity and literal plausibility were associated with faster reaction times for high working memory participants. In Experiment 2, familiarity was associated with faster reaction times for low working memory participants and meaningfulness with slower reaction times while in the high working memory group, noun frequency was associated with faster reading times and decompositionality with slower reaction times. The decompositionality results extend the results of previous studies with older versus younger adults which show that older adults prefer decomposable idioms compared to younger controls (Titone & Westbury 2010, Papagno & Muggia (2003). One compelling explanation for why decompositionality exerts different effects on high versus low working memory participants is related to differences in the ability to inhibit irrelevant information. Overall, the results show that working memory can have a significant impact on idiom processing; idioms vary greatly in certain properties that have been shown to affect processing and these properties in turn, affect high and low working memory participants differently. Overall, this shows that idiom comprehension is a dynamic process that is influenced by multiple constraints related to the properties of the idiom and the comprehender.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know