Is inhibition involved in the processing of opaque compound words?

References

1. Benedek, M., Franz, F., Heene, M., & Neubauer, A. C.
   (2012) Differential effects of cognitive inhibition and intelligence on creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(4), 480–485. 10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.014
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.014 [Google Scholar]
2. Bjorklund, D. F., & Harnishfeger, K. K.
   (1990) The resources construct in cognitive development: Diverse sources of evidence and a theory of inefficient inhibition. Developmental Review, 10(1), 48–71. 10.1016/0273‑2297(90)90004‑N
   https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(90)90004-N [Google Scholar]
3. Bisiach, E., Mini, M., Sterzi, R., & Vallar, G.
   (1982) Hemispheric lateralization of the decisional stage in choice reaction times to visual unstructured stimuli. Cortex, 18(2), 191–197. doi:  10.1016/S0010‑9452(82)80002‑6
   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(82)80002-6 [Google Scholar]
4. Brooks, T. L., & Cid de Garcia, D.
   (2015) Evidence for morphological composition in compound words using MEG. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 9:215. doi:  10.3389/fnhum.2015.00215
   https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00215 [Google Scholar]
5. Brysbaert, M., & New, B.
   (2009) Moving beyond Kuçera 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. 10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
   https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977 [Google Scholar]
6. Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., & Toth, J. P.
   (2008) Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task. Memory & Cognition, 36(8), 1484–1494. 10.3758/MC.36.8.1484
   https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.8.1484 [Google Scholar]
7. Durgin, F. H.
   (2000) The reverse Stroop effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(1), 121–125. 10.3758/BF03210730
   https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210730 [Google Scholar]
8. El-Bialy, Rowan, Gagné, C. L. & Spalding, T. L.
   (2013) Processing of English compounds is sensitive to the constituents’ semantic transparency. The Mental Lexicon8. 75–95. 10.1075/ml.8.1.04elb
   https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.8.1.04elb [Google Scholar]
9. Engle, Kane & Tuholski
   (1999) Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence and functions of the prefrontal cortex. InMiyake, A. & Shah, P. (Eds.), Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control (pp.102–134). London: Cambridge Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139174909.007
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174909.007 [Google Scholar]
10. Enright, S. J., & Beech, A. R.
    (1990) Obsessional states: Anxiety disorders or schizotypes? An information processing and personality assessment. Psychological Medicine, 20(3), 621–627. 10.1017/S003329170001713X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329170001713X [Google Scholar]
11. Frith, C. D.
    (1979) Consciousness, information processing, and schizophrenia. British Journal of Psychiatry, 134, 225–35. 10.1192/bjp.134.3.225
    https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.134.3.225 [Google Scholar]
12. Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L.
    (2009) Constituent integration during the processing of compound words: Does it involve the use of relational structures?Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1), 20–35. 10.1016/j.jml.2008.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.07.003 [Google Scholar]
13. Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L.
    (2014) Typing time as an index of morphological and semantic effects during English compound processing. Lingue e Linguaggio, 13(2), 241–262.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L.
    (2016) Written production of English compounds: effects of morphology and semantic transparency. Morphology, 26(2), 133–155. doi:  10.1007/s11525‑015‑9265‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-015-9265-0 [Google Scholar]
15. Gignac, G. E., & Vernon, P. A.
    (2004) Reaction time and the dominant and non-dominant hands: An extension of Hick’s Law. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 733–739. doi:  10.1016/S0191‑8869(03)00133‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00133-8 [Google Scholar]
16. Glucksberg, S., Newsome, M., & Goldvarg, Y.
    (2001) Inhibition of the literal: Filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol, 16, 277–293. 10.1080/10926488.2001.9678898
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678898 [Google Scholar]
17. Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T.
    (1988) Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view. InG. H. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 22 (pp.193–225). New York, NY: Academic Press. 10.1016/S0079‑7421(08)60041‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60041-9 [Google Scholar]
18. Hasher, L., Zacks, R. T., & May, C. P.
    (1999) Inhibitory control, circadian arousal, and age. InD. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention & Performance, XVII, Cognitive Regulation of Performance: Interaction of Theory and Application (pp.653–675). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Horga, G., & Maia, T. V.
    (2012) Conscious and unconscious processes in cognitive control: a theoretical perspective and a novel empirical approach. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6. 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00199
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00199 [Google Scholar]
20. Iakimova, G., Passerieux, C., & Hardy-Bayle, M. C.
    (2006) The understanding of metaphors in schizophrenia and depression. An experimental approach. Encephale, 32, 995–1002. 10.1016/S0013‑7006(06)76279‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7006(06)76279-0 [Google Scholar]
21. Imbrosciano, A., & Berlach, R.
    (2006) The Stroop test and its relationship to academic performance and general behaviour of young students. Teacher Development, 9, 131–144. 10.1080/13664530500200234
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530500200234 [Google Scholar]
22. Ji, H., Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L.
    (2011) Benefits and costs of lexical decomposition and semantic integration during the processing of transparent and opaque English compounds. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 406–430. 10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.003 [Google Scholar]
23. Joormann, J., Yoon, K. L., Zetsche, U.
    (2007) Cognitive inhibition in depression. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 12, 128–139. 10.1016/j.appsy.2007.09.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appsy.2007.09.002 [Google Scholar]
24. Juhasz, B. J.
    (2007) The influence of semantic transparency on eye movements during English compound word recognition. InR. von Gompel, W. Murray, & M. Fischer (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain (pp.373–389). Boston, MA: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑008044980‑7/50018‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044980-7/50018-5 [Google Scholar]
25. Knight, S., & Heinrich, A.
    (2017) Different measures of auditory and visual stroop interference and their relationship to speech intelligibility in noise. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 230. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00230
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00230 [Google Scholar]
26. Kuperman, V., & Van Dyke, J. A.
    (2011) Individual differences in visual comprehension of morphological complexity. InL. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.1643–1648). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Libben, G.
    (1993) A Case of obligatory access to morphological constituents. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 16, 111–12. 10.1017/S0332586500002766
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586500002766 [Google Scholar]
28. Libben, G.
    (2005) Everything is psycholinguistics: Material and methodological considerations in the study of compound processing. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistique. 50. 267–283. 10.1017/S000841310000373X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S000841310000373X [Google Scholar]
29. Libben, G., Gibson, M., Yoon, Y. B., & Sandra, D.
    (2003) Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 84, 50–64. 10.1016/S0093‑934X(02)00520‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00520-5 [Google Scholar]
30. Logan, G. D., Zbrodoff, N. J., & Williamson, J.
    (1984) Strategies in the color-word Stroop task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22(2), 135–138. 10.3758/BF03333784
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03333784 [Google Scholar]
31. MacGregor, L., & Shtyrov, Y.
    (2013) Multiple routes for compound word processing in the brain: Evidence from EEG. Brain & Language, 126, 217–229. 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2013.04.002 [Google Scholar]
32. MacLeod, C. M.
    (1991) Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychol. Bull. 109, 163–203. doi:  10.1037/0033‑2909.109.2.163
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163 [Google Scholar]
33. Monterosso, J. R., Aron, A. R., Cordova, X., Xu, J., & London, E. D.
    (2005) Deficits in response inhibition associated with chronic methamphetamine abuse. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 79(2), 273–277. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2005.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2005.02.002 [Google Scholar]
34. Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M.
    (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York, NY: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4419‑0318‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0318-1 [Google Scholar]
35. Sandra, D.
    (1990) On the representation and processing of compound words: Automatic access to constituent morphemes does not occur. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 42, 529–567. 10.1080/14640749008401236
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749008401236 [Google Scholar]
36. Sani, S. R., Tabibi, Z., Fadardi, J. S., & Stavrinos, D.
    (2017) Aggression, emotional self-regulation, attentional bias, and cognitive inhibition predict risky driving behavior. Accident; analysis and prevention, 109, 78–88. 10.1016/j.aap.2017.10.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.10.006 [Google Scholar]
37. Seidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Bienkowski, M.
    (1982) Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations on knowledge-based processing. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 489–532. 10.1016/0010‑0285(82)90017‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90017-2 [Google Scholar]
38. Schmidtke, D., Van Dyke, J. A., & Kuperman, V.
    (2018) Individual variability in the semantic processing of English compound words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(3), 421–439.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Stroop, J. R.
    (1935) Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662. 10.1037/h0054651
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651 [Google Scholar]
40. Traverso, L., Mantini, C., Usai, M. C., & Viterbori, P.
    (2015) The relationship between inhibition and working memory in preschoolers: Evidence for different inhibitory abilities. InG. Airenti, B. Bara, G. Sandini, & M. Cruciani (Eds.). Proceedings of the EuroAsianPacific Joint Conference on Cognitive Science / 4th European Conference on Cognitive Science / 11th International Conference on Cognitive Science (pp.48–53). Torino, Italy.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Treisman, A., & Fearnley, S.
    (1969) The Stroop test: Selective attention to colours and words. Nature, 222, 437–439. 10.1038/222437a0
    https://doi.org/10.1038/222437a0 [Google Scholar]