References
- 1Albrecht, J. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (1993). Updating a mental model: Maintaining both local and global coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(5), 1061–1070. 10.1037/0278-7393.19.5.1061
- 2Armstrong, B. C., & Plaut, D. C. (2008). Settling Dynamics in Distributed Networks Explain Task Differences in Semantic Ambiguity Effects: Computational and Behavioral Evidence. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 30(30). 10.1037/e527312012-207
- 3Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
- 4Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
- 5Beatty, J. (1982). Phasic Not Tonic Pupillary Responses Vary With Auditory Vigilance Performance. Psychophysiology, 19(2), 167–172. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1982.tb02540.x
- 6Beretta, A., Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(1), 57–65. 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.12.006
- 7Berkum, J. J. A. van, Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (1999). Semantic Integration in Sentences and Discourse: Evidence from the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(6), 657–671. 10.1162/089892999563724
- 8Blott, L. M., Hartopp, O., Nation, K., & Rodd, J. M. (2022). Learning about the meanings of ambiguous words: Evidence from a word-meaning priming paradigm with short narratives. PeerJ, 10,
e14070 . 10.7717/peerj.14070 - 9Boudewyn, M. A., Long, D. L., & Swaab, T. Y. (2015). Graded expectations: Predictive processing and the adjustment of expectations during spoken language comprehension. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 15(3), 607–624. 10.3758/s13415-015-0340-0
- 10Brothers, T., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2021). Word predictability effects are linear, not logarithmic: Implications for probabilistic models of sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 116, 104174. 10.1016/j.jml.2020.104174
- 11Brown, S. W. (2008). Polysemy in the Mental Lexicon. Colorado Research in Linguistics. 10.25810/s1d0-gj21
- 12Cabana, Á., Zugarramurdi, C., Valle-Lisboa, J. C., & De Deyne, S. (2024). The “Small World of Words” free association norms for Rioplatense Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, 56(2), 968–985. 10.3758/s13428-023-02070-z
- 13Camblin, C. C., Gordon, P. C., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). The interplay of discourse congruence and lexical association during sentence processing: Evidence from ERPs and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(1), 103–128. 10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.005
- 14Carter, G.-A., & Hoffman, P. (2024). Discourse coherence modulates use of predictive processing during sentence comprehension. Cognition, 242, 105637. 10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105637
- 15Cavanagh, J. F., & Frank, M. J. (2014). Frontal theta as a mechanism for cognitive control. Trends in cognitive sciences, 18(8), 414–421. 10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.012
- 16Cevoli, B., Watkins, C., & Rastle, K. (2021). What is semantic diversity and why does it facilitate visual word recognition? Behavior Research Methods, 53(1), 247–263. 10.3758/s13428-020-01440-1
- 17Chapman, L. R., & Hallowell, B. (2015). A Novel Pupillometric Method for Indexing Word Difficulty in Individuals With and Without Aphasia. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58(5), 1508–1520. 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-14-0287
- 18Curtis, A. J., Mak, M. H. C., Chen, S., Rodd, J. M., & Gaskell, M. G. (2022). Word-meaning priming extends beyond homonyms. Cognition, 226, 105175. 10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105175
- 19De Deyne, S., Navarro, D. J., Collell, G., & Perfors, A. (2021). Visual and Affective Multimodal Models of Word Meaning in Language and Mind. Cognitive Science, 45(1),
e12922 . 10.1111/cogs.12922 - 20De Groot, A. M. B. (1985). Word-Context Effects in Word Naming and Lexical Decision. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 37(2), 281–297. 10.1080/14640748508400934
- 21DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8(8), 1117–1121. 10.1038/nn1504
- 22Duchon, A., Perea, M., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Martí, A., & Carreiras, M. (2013). EsPal: One-stop shopping for Spanish word properties. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1246–1258. 10.3758/s13428-013-0326-1
- 23Engelhardt, P. E., Ferreira, F., & Patsenko, E. G. (2010). Pupillometry reveals processing load during spoken language comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(4), 639–645. 10.1080/17470210903469864
- 24Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (1999). A Rose by Any Other Name: Long-Term Memory Structure and Sentence Processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 469–495. 10.1006/jmla.1999.2660
- 25Fleur, D. S., Flecken, M., Rommers, J., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2020). Definitely saw it coming? The dual nature of the pre-nominal prediction effect. Cognition, 204, 104335. 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104335
- 26Fraga, I., Padrón, I., Perea, M., & Comesaña, M. (2017). I saw this somewhere else: The Spanish Ambiguous Words (SAW) database. Lingua, 185, 1–10. 10.1016/j.lingua.2016.07.002
- 27Friedman, D., Hakerem, G., Sutton, S., & Fleiss, J. L. (1973). Effect of stimulus uncertainty on the pupillary dilation response and the vertex evoked potential. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 34(5), 475–484. 10.1016/0013-4694(73)90065-5
- 28Gaskell, M. G., Cairney, S. A., & Rodd, J. M. (2019). Contextual priming of word meanings is stabilized over sleep. Cognition, 182, 109–126. 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.09.007
- 29Geller, J., Landrigan, J.-F., & Mirman, D. (2019). A pupillometric examination of cognitive control in taxonomic and thematic semantic memory. Journal of Cognition, 2(1). 10.5334/joc.56
- 30Geller, J., Still, M. L., & Morris, A. L. (2016). Eyes wide open: Pupil size as a proxy for inhibition in the masked-priming paradigm. Memory & Cognition, 44(4), 554–564. 10.3758/s13421-015-0577-4
- 31Gilbert, R. A., Davis, M. H., Gaskell, M. G., & Rodd, J. M. (2018). Listeners and readers generalize their experience with word meanings across modalities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(10), 1533. 10.1037/xlm0000532
- 32Gilbert, R. A., & Rodd, J. M. (2022). Dominance norms and data for spoken ambiguous words in British English. Journal of Cognition, 5(1), 4. 10.5334/joc.194
- 33Gilzenrat, M. S., Nieuwenhuis, S., Jepma, M., & Cohen, J. D. (2010). Pupil diameter tracks changes in control state predicted by the adaptive gain theory of locus coeruleus function. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 10(2), 252–269. 10.3758/CABN.10.2.252
- 34Graves, J. E., Egré, P., Pressnitzer, D., & de Gardelle, V. (2021). An implicit representation of stimulus ambiguity in pupil size. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(48),
e2107997118 . 10.1073/pnas.2107997118 - 35Guasch, M., Ferré, P., & Haro, J. (2017). Pupil dilation is sensitive to the cognate status of words: Further evidence for non-selectivity in bilingual lexical access. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(1), 49–54. 10.1017/S1366728916000651
- 36Haro, J., & Ferré, P. (2018). Semantic Ambiguity: Do Multiple Meanings Inhibit or Facilitate Word Recognition? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47(3), 679–698. 10.1007/s10936-017-9554-3
- 37Haro, J., Ferré, P., Boada, R., & Demestre, J. (2017). Semantic ambiguity norms for 530 Spanish words. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(2), 457–475. 10.1017/S0142716416000266
- 38Haro, J., Guasch, M., Vallès, B., & Ferré, P. (2017). Is pupillary response a reliable index of word recognition? Evidence from a delayed lexical decision task. Behavior Research Methods, 49(5), 1930–1938. 10.3758/s13428-016-0835-9
- 39Haro, J., López-Cortés, N., & Ferré, P. (2023). Pupillometric and behavioural evidence shows no differences between polyseme and homonym processing. Acta Psychologica, 238, 103985. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.103985
- 40Hayes, T. R., & Petrov, A. A. (2016). Mapping and correcting the influence of gaze position on pupil size measurements. Behavior Research Methods, 48(2), 510–527. 10.3758/s13428-015-0588-x
- 41Helder, A., Perfetti, C. A., & van den Broek, P. (2020). Thematic influences on word-to-text integration across a sentence boundary. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(10), 1239–1256. 10.1080/23273798.2020.1772494
- 42Hershman, R., Milshtein, D., & Henik, A. (2023). The contribution of temporal analysis of pupillometry measurements to cognitive research. Psychological Research, 87(1), 28–42. 10.1007/s00426-022-01656-0
- 43Hess, D. J., Foss, D. J., & Carroll, P. (1995). Effects of global and local context on lexical processing during language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(1), 62–82. 10.1037/0096-3445.124.1.62
- 44Hino, Y., Pexman, P. M., & Lupker, S. J. (2006). Ambiguity and relatedness effects in semantic tasks: Are they due to semantic coding? Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 247–273. 10.1016/j.jml.2006.04.001
- 45Hoffman, P. (2016). The meaning of ‘life’ and other abstract words: Insights from neuropsychology. Journal of Neuropsychology, 10(2), 317–343. 10.1111/jnp.12065
- 46Holcomb, P. J., & Anderson, J. E. (1993). Cross-modal semantic priming: A time-course analysis using event-related brain potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(4), 379–411. 10.1080/01690969308407583
- 47Hutton, S. (2019, junio 3). Eye Tracking for Pupillometry. Fast, Accurate, Reliable Eye Tracking.
https://www.sr-research.com/eye-tracking-blog/background/pupillometry-research/ - 48Joshi, S., Li, Y., Kalwani, R. M., & Gold, J. I. (2016). Relationships between Pupil Diameter and Neuronal Activity in the Locus Coeruleus, Colliculi, and Cingulate Cortex. Neuron, 89(1), 221–234. 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.11.028
- 49Jurado, D. (2024).
Contribuciones del contexto semántico al procesamiento de palabras (Master’s thesis). Universidad de Buenos Aires. - 50Kadem, M., Herrmann, B., Rodd, J. M., & Johnsrude, I. S. (2020). Pupil Dilation Is Sensitive to Semantic Ambiguity and Acoustic Degradation. Trends in Hearing, 24, 2331216520964068. 10.1177/2331216520964068
- 51Kahneman, D., & Beatty, J. (1966). Pupil Diameter and Load on Memory. Science, 154(3756), 1583–1585. 10.1126/science.154.3756.1583
- 52Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182. 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
- 53Kleinman, D., Runnqvist, E., & Ferreira, V. S. (2015). Single-word predictions of upcoming language during comprehension: Evidence from the cumulative semantic interference task. Cognitive Psychology, 79, 68–101. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.04.001
- 54Klepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. R. (2007). Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(1), 1–24. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2006.02.001
- 55Klimesch, W. (1999). EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance: A review and analysis. Brain research reviews, 29(2–3), 169–195. 10.1016/S0165-0173(98)00056-3
- 56Kuchinke, L., Võ, M. L.-H., Hofmann, M., & Jacobs, A. M. (2007). Pupillary responses during lexical decisions vary with word frequency but not emotional valence. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 65(2), 132–140. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2007.04.004
- 57Kuchinsky, S. E., Ahlstrom, J. B., Vaden, K. I., Cute, S. L., Humes, L. E., Dubno, J. R., & Eckert, M. A. (2013). Pupil size varies with word listening and response selection difficulty in older adults with hearing loss. Psychophysiology, 50(1), 23–34. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01477.x
- 58Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty Years and Counting: Finding Meaning in the N400 Component of the Event-Related Brain Potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 621–647. 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
- 59Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading Senseless Sentences: Brain Potentials Reflect Semantic Incongruity. Science, 207(4427), 203–205. 10.1126/science.7350657
- 60Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). “lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models.” Journal of Statistical Software, *82*(13), 1–26. 10.18637/jss.v082.i13
- 61Laurino, J., De Deyne, S., Cabana, Á., & Kaczer, L. (2023). The Pandemic in Words: Tracking Fast Semantic Changes via a Large-Scale Word Association Task. Open Mind, 7, 221–239. 10.1162/opmi_a_00081
- 62Lenth, R. (2024). emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.10.1.
https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans - 63Liu, C., Cohn, T., Deyne, S. D., & Frermann, L. (2022). WAX: A New Dataset for Word Association eXplanations. En Y. He, H. Ji, S. Li, Y. Liu & C.-H. Chang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 12th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) (pp. 106–120).
Association for Computational Linguistics . 10.18653/v1/2022.aacl-main.9 - 64López Cortés, N., & Horno Chéliz, C. (2021). La naturaleza de la ambigüedad léxica: Un estudio sobre los sustantivos en español. Universidad de Zaragoza, Prensas de la Universidad.
- 65Luck, S. J. (2014). An introduction to the event-related potential technique. MIT press.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=y4-uAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=Luck,+S.J.++(2014)+An+introduction+to+the+event-related+potential+technique.++MIT+press&ots=jD_3I5RSCz&sig=n0ELfQ3OZg3d0Ta3-BfmW4HTBys - 66Lyons, J. (1981). Language and Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511809859
- 67Mathôt, S. (2018). Pupillometry: Psychology, physiology, and function. Journal of cognition, 1(1), 16. 10.5334/joc.18
- 68Mathôt, S. (2024).
DataMatrix (Version 1.0.13) [Computer software] . GitHub.https://pydatamatrix.eu/ - 69Mathôt, S., & Vilotijević, A. (2022). Methods in cognitive pupillometry: Design, preprocessing, and statistical analysis. Behavior Research Methods. 10.3758/s13428-022-01957-7
- 70McLaughlin, D. J., Colvett, J. S., Bugg, J. M., & Van Engen, K. J. (2024). Sequence effects and speech processing: Cognitive load for speaker-switching within and across accents. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 31(1), 176–186. 10.3758/s13423-023-02322-1
- 71McLaughlin, D. J., Zink, M. E., Gaunt, L., Brent Spehar, N., Van Engen, K. J., Sommers, M. S., & Peelle, J. E. (2022). Pupillometry reveals cognitive demands of lexical competition during spoken word recognition in young and older adults. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29(1), 268–280. 10.3758/s13423-021-01991-0
- 72McLaughlin, D. J., Zink, M. E., Gaunt, L., Reilly, J., Sommers, M. S., Van Engen, K. J., & Peelle, J. E. (2023). Give me a break! Unavoidable fatigue effects in cognitive pupillometry. Psychophysiology, 60(7),
e14256 . 10.1111/psyp.14256 - 73McMahon, C. M., Boisvert, I., de Lissa, P., Granger, L., Ibrahim, R., Lo, C. Y., Miles, K., & Graham, P. L. (2016). Monitoring Alpha Oscillations and Pupil Dilation across a Performance-Intensity Function. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00745
- 74Miles, K., McMahon, C., Boisvert, I., Ibrahim, R., de Lissa, P., Graham, P., & Lyxell, B. (2017). Objective Assessment of Listening Effort: Coregistration of Pupillometry and EEG. Trends in Hearing, 21, 2331216517706396. 10.1177/2331216517706396
- 75Mirman, D. (2014). Growth Curve Analysis and Visualization Using R. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
- 76Monzó, A. E. (1991). Estudio normativo sobre ambigüedad en castellano. Cognitiva, 3(2), 237–246.
- 77Murphy, P. R., O’Connell, R. G., O’Sullivan, M., Robertson, I. H., & Balsters, J. H. (2014). Pupil diameter covaries with BOLD activity in human locus coeruleus. Human Brain Mapping, 35(8), 4140–4154. 10.1002/hbm.22466
- 78Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 402–407. 10.3758/BF03195588
- 79Papesh, M. H., & Goldinger, S. D. (2012). Pupil-BLAH-metry: Cognitive effort in speech planning reflected by pupil dilation. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(4), 754–765. 10.3758/s13414-011-0263-y
- 80Peelle, J. E., & Van Engen, K. J. (2021). Time Stand Still: Effects of Temporal Window Selection on Eye Tracking Analysis. Collabra: Psychology, 7(1), 25961. 10.1525/collabra.25961
- 81Peirce, J., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman, E., & Lindeløv, J. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195–203. 10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y
- 82Pexman, P. M., Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (2004). Semantic Ambiguity and the Process of Generating Meaning From Print. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(6), 1252–1270. 10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1252
- 83Pluchino, P., Gamberini, L., Barral, O., & Minelle, F. (2014).
How Semantic Processing of Words Evokes Changes in Pupil . En G. Jacucci, L. Gamberini, J. Freeman, & A. Spagnolli (Eds.), Symbiotic Interaction (Vol. 8820, pp. 99–112). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-319-13500-7_8 - 84R Core Team (2024). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. <
https://www.R-project.org/ >. - 85Ralph, M. A. L., Jefferies, E., Patterson, K., & Rogers, T. T. (2017). The neural and computational bases of semantic cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(1), 42–55. 10.1038/nrn.2016.150
- 86Rayner, K., Ashby, J., Pollatsek, A., & Reichle, E. D. (2004). The Effects of Frequency and Predictability on Eye Fixations in Reading: Implications for the E-Z Reader Model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(4), 720–732. 10.1037/0096-1523.30.4.720
- 87Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14(3), 191–201. 10.3758/BF03197692
- 88Real Academia Española. (2014). Diccionario de la lengua española (23a ed.).
https://dle.rae.es/ - 89Rice, C. A., Beekhuizen, B., Dubrovsky, V., Stevenson, S., & Armstrong, B. C. (2019). A comparison of homonym meaning frequency estimates derived from movie and television subtitles, free association, and explicit ratings. Behavior Research Methods, 51(3), 1399–1425. 10.3758/s13428-018-1107-7
- 90Rodd, J. M. (2020). Settling Into Semantic Space: An Ambiguity-Focused Account of Word-Meaning Access. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 411–427. 10.1177/1745691619885860
- 91Rodd, J. M., Cai, Z. G., Betts, H. N., Hanby, B., Hutchinson, C., & Adler, A. (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. 10.1016/j.jml.2015.10.006
- 92Rodd, J. M., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making Sense of Semantic Ambiguity: Semantic Competition in Lexical Access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(2), 245–266. 10.1006/jmla.2001.2810
- 93Rodd, J. M., Lopez Cutrin, B., Kirsch, H., Millar, A., & Davis, M. H. (2013). Long-term priming of the meanings of ambiguous words. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(2), 180–198. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.08.002
- 94Rojas, C., Vega-Rodríguez, Y. E., Lagos, G., Cabrera-Miguieles, M. G., Sandoval, Y., & Crisosto-Alarcón, J. (2024). Applicability and usefulness of pupillometry in the study of lexical access. A scoping review of primary research. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1372912. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1372912
- 95Sara, S. J. (2009). The locus coeruleus and noradrenergic modulation of cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(3), 211–223. 10.1038/nrn2573
- 96Schustack, M. W., Ehrlich, S. F., & Rayner, K. (1987). Local and global sources of contextual facilitation in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(3), 322–340. 10.1016/0749-596X(87)90117-3
- 97Schwanenflugel, P. J., Harnishfeger, K. K., & Stowe, R. W. (1988). Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(5), 499–520. 10.1016/0749-596X(88)90022-8
- 98Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Stowe, R. W. (1989). Context Availability and the Processing of Abstract and Concrete Words in Sentences. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(1), 114–126. 10.2307/748013
- 99Schwanenflugel, P. J., & White, C. R. (1991). The Influence of Paragraph Information on the Processing of Upcoming Words. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(2), 160–177. 10.2307/747980
- 100Sharkey, N. E., & Mitchell, D. C. (1985). Word recognition in a functional context: The use of scripts in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(2), 253–270. 10.1016/0749-596X(85)90027-0
- 101Simpson, 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. 10.1037//0096-1523.11.1.28
- 102Sirois, S., & Brisson, J. (2014). Pupillometry. WIREs Cognitive Science, 5(6), 679–692. 10.1002/wcs.1323
- 103Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(6), 645–659. 10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90355-4
- 104Szewczyk, J. M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2022). Context-based facilitation of semantic access follows both logarithmic and linear functions of stimulus probability. Journal of Memory and Language, 123, 104311. 10.1016/j.jml.2021.104311
- 105Trott, S., & Bergen, B. (2023). Word meaning is both categorical and continuous. Psychological Review. 10.1037/rev0000420
- 106Twilley, L. C., Dixon, P., Taylor, D., & Clark, K. (1994). University of Alberta norms of relative meaning frequency for 566 homographs. Memory & Cognition, 22(1), 111–126. 10.3758/BF03202766
- 107Vu, H., Kellas, G., Metcalf, K., & Herman, R. (2000). The influence of global discourse on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory & Cognition, 28(2), 236–252. 10.3758/BF03213803
- 108Winn, M. B. (2016). Rapid Release From Listening Effort Resulting From Semantic Context, and Effects of Spectral Degradation and Cochlear Implants. Trends in Hearing, 20, 2331216516669723. 10.1177/2331216516669723
- 109Winn, M. B., Edwards, J. R., & Litovsky, R. Y. (2015). The Impact of Auditory Spectral Resolution on Listening Effort Revealed by Pupil Dilation. Ear and Hearing, 36(4), e153–165. 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000145
- 110Winn, M. B., Wendt, D., Koelewijn, T., & Kuchinsky, S. E. (2018). Best Practices and Advice for Using Pupillometry to Measure Listening Effort: An Introduction for Those Who Want to Get Started. Trends in Hearing, 22, 2331216518800869. 10.1177/2331216518800869
- 111Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., & Festen, J. M. (2010). Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: The influence of sentence intelligibility. Ear and hearing, 31(4), 480–490. 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181d4f251
- 112Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162–185. 10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162