Phonologically-mediated meaning activation in monolinguals and bilinguals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The current study investigated how language experience impacts phonologically-mediated meaning activation. Monolinguals and bilinguals made living/non-living judgments on English homophones (e.g., beech, beach) while Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) were recorded. Context was manipulated by making the preceding trial either unrelated (e.g., servant → beech) or semantically-related, creating priming. The related context either strengthened (e.g., oak → beech) or diminished (e.g., oak → beach) a homophone’s meaning. In the unrelated context, both groups utilized phonology similarly to access meaning, as evidenced by a later N400 and a larger late positive component (LPC) for homophones than for non-homophonic words. However, when the context primed the incorrect meaning (e.g., oak → beach), only monolinguals exhibited N400 attenuation and delayed LPCs, indicating that they were mistakenly using phonology and context to access meaning and were then required to reanalyze their interpretation. These results provide insight into how oral language experience impacts phonological activation of meaning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".