References
- 1Balota, D. A., & Yap, M. J. (2011). Moving Beyond the Mean in Studies of Mental Chronometry. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 160–166. DOI: 10.1177/0963721411408885
- 2Barr, 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). DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
- 3Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
- 4Beatty, J. (1982). Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychological Bulletin, 91(2), 276–292. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.91.2.276
- 5Britt, A. E., Ferrara, C., & Mirman, D. (2016). Distinct Effects of Lexical and Semantic Competition during Picture Naming in Younger Adults, Older Adults, and People with Aphasia. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 813. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00813
- 6Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
- 7Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC Psycholinguistic Database. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 33(4), 497–505. DOI: 10.1080/14640748108400805
- 8Davey, J., Cornelissen, P. L., Thompson, H. E., Sonkusare, X. S., Hallam, G., Smallwood, J., & Jefferies, X. E. (2015). Behavioral/Cognitive Automatic and Controlled Semantic Retrieval: TMS Reveals Distinct Contributions of Posterior Middle Temporal Gyrus and Angular Gyrus. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4705-14.2015
- 9Estes, Z., Golonka, S., & Jones, L. L. (2011). Thematic Thinking, 249–294. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-385527-5.00008-5
- 10Hess, E. H., & Polt, J. M. (1964). Pupil Size in Relation to Mental Activity during Simple Problem-Solving. Science, 143(3611), 1190–1192. DOI: 10.1126/science.143.3611.1190
- 11Hoffman, P., McClelland, J. L., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2018). Concepts, control, and context: A connectionist account of normal and disordered semantic cognition. Psychological Review, 125(3), 293–328. DOI: 10.1037/rev0000094
- 12Kahneman, D., & Beatty, J. (1966). Pupil diameter and load on memory. Science (New York, N.Y.), 154(3756), 1583–1585. Retrieved from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5924930 . DOI: 10.1126/science.154.3756.1583 - 13Kret, M. E., & Sjak-Shie, E. E. (2018). Preprocessing pupil size data: Guidelines and code. Behavior Research Methods, 1–7. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-018-1075-y
- 14Kuchinsky, S. E., Ahlstrom, J. B., Vaden, K. I., Cute, S. L., Humes, L. E., Dubno, J. R., Eckert, M. A., et al. (2013). Pupil size varies with word listening and response selection difficulty in older adults with hearing loss. Psychophysiology, 50(1), 23–34. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01477.x
- 15Kuznetsova, 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. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v082.i13
- 16Lakens, D. (2017). Equivalence Tests. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 355–362. DOI: 10.1177/1948550617697177
- 17Lambon Ralph, M. A., Jefferies, E., Patterson, K., & Rogers, T. T. (2017). The neural and computational bases of semantic cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(1), 42–55. DOI: 10.1038/nrn.2016.150
- 18Landrigan, J.-F., & Mirman, D. (2018). The cost of switching between taxonomic and thematic semantics. Memory & Cognition, 46(2), 191–203. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-017-0757-5
- 19Lawson, R., Chang, F., & Wills, A. J. (2017). Free classification of large sets of everyday objects is more thematic than taxonomic. Acta Psychologica, 172, 26–40. DOI: 10.1016/J.ACTPSY.2016.11.001
- 20Marian, V., Bartolotti, J., Chabal, S., & Shook, A. (2012). CLEARPOND: Cross-Linguistic Easy-Access Resource for Phonological and Orthographic Neighborhood Densities. PLoS ONE, 7(8),
e43230 . DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043230 - 21Mathôt, S. (2018). Pupillometry: Psychology, Physiology, and Function. Journal of Cognition, 1(1). DOI: 10.5334/joc.18
- 22Mirman, D. (2014). Growth Curve Analysis and Visualization Using R. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press.
- 23Mirman, D., Landrigan, J.-F., & Britt, A. E. (2017). Taxonomic and thematic semantic systems. Psychological Bulletin, 143(5), 499–520. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000092
- 24Rogers, T. T., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/6161.001.0001
- 25Savic, O., Savic, A. M., & Kovic, V. (2017). Comparing the temporal dynamics of thematic and taxonomic processing using event-related potentials. PLOS ONE, 12(12),
e0189362 . DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189362 - 26Schwartz, M. F., Kimberg, D. Y., Walker, G. M., Brecher, A., Faseyitan, O. K., Dell, G. S., Coslett, H. B., et al. (2011). Neuroanatomical dissociation for taxonomic and thematic knowledge in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(20), 8520–8524. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1014935108
- 27Thompson, H., Davey, J., Hoffman, P., Hallam, G., Kosinski, R., Howkins, S., Jefferies, E., et al. (2017). Semantic control deficits impair understanding of thematic relationships more than object identity. Neuropsychologia, 104, 113–125. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.08.013
- 28van der Wel, P., & van Steenbergen, H. (2018). Pupil dilation as an index of effort in cognitive control tasks: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-018-1432-y
- 29Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems ofp values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5), 779–804. DOI: 10.3758/BF03194105
- 30Winn, 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–e165. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000145