Skip to main content Accessibility help

Word meaning in word identification during reading: Co-occurrence-based semantic neighborhood density effects



Identifying individual words is an essential part of the reading process that should occur first so that understanding the structural relations between words and comprehending the sentence as a whole may take place. Therefore, lexical processing (or word identification) has received much attention in the literature, with many researchers exploring the effects of different aspects of word representation (orthographic, phonological, and semantic information of words) in word identification. While the influence of many orthographic and phonological factors in normal reading are well researched and understood (Rayner, 1998, 2009), the effect of semantic characteristics of a word in its identification has received relatively less attention. A complete account of lexical processing during normal reading requires understanding the role of word meaning in lexical processing. Currently, little is understood about whether and how the meaning of an individual word is extracted during early stages of word identification. This article primarily focuses on how word meaning contributes to the process of word identification.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Word meaning in word identification during reading: Co-occurrence-based semantic neighborhood density effects
      Available formats

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Word meaning in word identification during reading: Co-occurrence-based semantic neighborhood density effects
      Available formats

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Word meaning in word identification during reading: Co-occurrence-based semantic neighborhood density effects
      Available formats


Corresponding author

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Badriya H. Al Farsi, English Language Department, Ibri College of Applied Sciences, Ibri, P.O. Box 14, Postal code: 516, Oman. E-mail:


Hide All
Ahn, W. K., Marsh, J. K., Luhmann, C. C., & Lee, K. (2002). Effect of theory-based feature correlations on typicality judgments. Memory & Cognition, 30, 107118.
Baayen, R. H. (2001). Word frequency distributions. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Balota, D. A. (1990). The role of meaning in word recognition. In Balota, D. A., d'Arcais, G. B. F., & Rayner, K. (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 932). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Binder, J. R., Westbury, C. F., McKiernan, K. A., Possing, E. T., & Medler, D. A. (2005). Distinct brain systems for processing concrete and abstract concepts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 905917.
Buchanan, L., Westbury, C., & Burgess, C. (2001). Characterizing semantic space: Neighborhood effects in word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 531544.
Bullinaria, J. A., & Levy, J. P. (2007). Extracting semantic representations from word co-occurrence statistics: A computational study. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 510526.
Connell, L., & Ramscar, M. (2001). Using distributional measures to model typicality in categorization. In Moore, J. & Stenning, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 226231). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cook, A. E., Colbert-Getz, J., & Kircher, J. C. (2013). Number-of-features effect during reading: Evidence from eye movements. Discourse Process, 50, 210225.
Cree, G. S., & McRae, K. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 163201.
Cree, G. S., McRae, K., & McNorgan, C. (1999). An attractor model of lexical conceptual processing: Simulating semantic priming. Cognitive Science, 23, 371414.
Damasio, A. R. (1989). Time-locked multiregional retroactivation: A systems-level proposal for the neural substrates of recall and recognition. Cognition, 33, 2562.
Danguecan, A. N., & Buchanan, L. (2016). Semantic neighborhood effects for abstract versus concrete words. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01034
de Vega, M., Graesser, A. C., & Glenberg, A. M. (2008). Reflecting on the debate. In Vega, M. de, Glenberg, A. M., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.), Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition (pp. 397440). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duñabeitia, J. A., Avilés, A., & Carreiras, M. (2008). NoA's ark: Influence of number of associates in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 10721077.
Durda, K., & Buchanan, L. (2008). WINDSORS: Windsor improved norms of distance and similarity of representations of semantics. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 705712.
Durda, K., Buchanan, L., & Caron, R. (2006). WordMine2 [Online]. Retrieved from
Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E., & Kliegl, R. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112, 777813.
Evert, S., & Lenci, A. (2009, July 30). Geometric methods in vector space: Distributional semantic models [PDF file]. European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information (ESSLLI). Lecture conducted from the Association for Logic, Language and Information (FoLLI), Bordeaux. Retrieved from
Firth, J. R. (1968). A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–1955. In Palmer, F. R. (Ed.), Selected Papers of J.R. Firth 1952–1959. London: Longman. (Original work published 1957)
Forster, K. I. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. In Wales, R. J. & Walk, E. (Eds.), New approaches to language mechanism (pp. 257287). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Forster, K. I., & Shen, D. (1996). No enemies in the neighborhood: Absence of inhibitory effects in lexical decision and categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 696713.
Harris, Z. (1954). Distributional structure. Word, 10, 146162.
Harris, Z. (1970). Distributional structure. In Harris, Z. (Ed.), Papers in structural and transformational linguistics: Formal linguistics (pp. 775794). New York: Humanities Press.
Holyoak, K. J., & Spellman, B. A. (1993). Thinking. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 265315.
Jusczyk, P. W., Cutler, A., & Redanz, N. J. (1993). Infants' preference for the predominant stress patterns of English words. Child Development, 64, 675687.
Kintsch, W. (2007). Meaning in context. In Landauer, T. K., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp. 89105). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kintsch, W. (2008). Symbol systems and perceptual representations. In de Vega, M., Glenberg, A. & Graesser, A. (Eds.), Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition (pp. 145163). New York: Oxford University Press.
Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of the acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211240.
Levy, J. P., Bullinaria, J. A., & Patel, M. (1998). Explorations in the derivation of semantic representations from word co-occurrence statistics. South Pacific Journal of Psychology, 10, 99111.
Lin, E. L., & Murphy, G. L. (1997). Effects of background knowledge on object categorization and part detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 11531169.
Locker, L. Jr., Simpson, G. B., & Yates, M. (2003). Semantic neighborhood effects on the recognition of polysemous words. Memory & Cognition, 31, 505515.
Louwerse, M., & Zwaan, R. (2009). Language encodes geographical information. Cognitive Science, 33, 5173.
Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 28, 203208.
Macdonald, G. (2013). Aging and semantic processing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Windsor).
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375407.
McRae, K. (2004). Semantic memory: Some insights from feature-based connectionist attractor network. In Ross, B. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 45, pp. 4186). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 547559.
McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Westmacott, R., & de Sa, V. R. (1999). Further evidence for feature correlations in semantic memory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 360373.
McRae, K., de Sa, V. R., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 99130.
McRae, K., & Jones, M. N. (2013). Semantic memory. In Reisberg, D. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp. 206219). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist, 44, 14691481.
Miller, G., & Charles, W. G. (1991). Contextual correlates of semantic similarity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 128.
Mirman, D., & Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Attractor dynamics and semantic neighborhood density: Processing is slowed by near neighbors and speeded by distant neighbors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 6579.
Moss, H. E., & Tyler, L. K. (1995). Investigating semantic memory impairments: The contribution of semantic priming. Memory, 3, 359395.
Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92, 289316.
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Retrieved from
Patterson, K., Nestor, P. J., & Rogers, T. T. (2007). Where do you know what you know? The representation of semantic knowledge in the human brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 976987.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Pexman, P. M., Hargreaves, I. S., Siakaluk, P., Bodner, G., & Pope, J. (2008). There are many ways to be rich: Effects of three measures of semantic richness on word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 161167.
Plaut, D. C., & Shallice, T. (1993). Deep dyslexia: A case study of connectionist neuropsychology. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 10, 377500.
Plummer, P., Perea, M., & Rayner, K. (2014). The influence of contextual diversity on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 275283.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372422.
Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements in reading: Models and data. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2, 110.
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2006). E-Z reader: A cognitive-control, serial-attention model of eye-movement behavior during reading. Cognitive Systems Research, 7, 422.
Reilly, M., & Desai, R. H. (2017). Effects of semantic neighborhood density in abstract and concrete words. Cognition, 169, 4653.
Riordan, B., & Jones, M. N. (2010). Redundancy in perceptual and linguistic experience: Comparing feature-based and distributional models of semantic representation. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 303345. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01111.x
Rohde, D. L. T., Gonnerman, L. M., & Plaut, D. C. (2005). An improved model of semantic similarity based on lexical co-occurrence. Unpublished manuscript.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. (1975). Family resemblance: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573605.
Roskies, A. L. (1999). The binding problem. Neuron, 24, 79.
Rubenstein, H., & Goodenough, J. (1965). Contextual correlates of synonymy. Communications of the ACM, 8, 627633.
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 19261928.
Sahlgren, M. (2006). The word-space model: Using distributional analysis to represent syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations between words in high dimensional vector spaces. PhD Dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.
Sahlgren, M. (2008). The distributional hypothesis. Rivista di Linguistica [Italian Journal of Linguistics], 20, 3353.
Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition. Psychological Review, 96, 523568.
Shallice, T., & Cooper, R. P. (2013). Is there a semantic system for abstract words? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 110.
Shaoul, C., & Westbury, C. (2006). Word frequency effects in high-dimensional co-occurrence models: A new approach. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 190195.
Shaoul, C., & Westbury, C. (2010a). Exploring lexical co-occurrence space using HiDEx. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 393413.
Shaoul, C., & Westbury, C. (2010b). Neighborhood density measures for 57,153 English words. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta. Retrieved from
Shaoul, C., & Westbury, C. (2012). HiDEx: The high dimensional explorer. In McCarthy, P. M. & Boonthum-Denecke, C. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 230246). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Siakaluk, P., Buchanan, L., & Westbury, C. (2003). The effect of semantic distance in yes/no and go/no-go semantic categorization tasks. Memory & Cognition, 31, 100113.
Simmons, W. K., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). The similarity-in-topography principle: Reconciling theories of conceptual deficits. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 451486.
Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., & Rips, L. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A feature model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review, 81, 214241.
Smith, E. E., Osherson, D. N., Rips, L. J., & Keane, M. (1988). Combining prototypes: A selective modification model. Cognitive Science, 12, 485–52.
Solomon, K. O., & Barsalou, L. W. (2001). Representing properties locally. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 129169.
Song, D., Bruza, P., & Cole, R. (2004, July 30). Concept learning and information inferencing on a high-dimensional semantic space. Paper presented at the ACM SIGIR 2004 Workshop on Mathematical/Formal Methods in Information Retrieval, Sheffield, UK.
Sternberg, S. (1969). Memory-scanning: Mental processes revealed by reaction-time experiments. American Scientist, 57, 421457.
Stolz, J. A., & Besner, D. (1996). Role of set in visual word recognition: Activation and activation blocking as nonautomatic processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 11661177.
von der Malsburg, C. (1999). The what and why of binding: The modeler's perspective. Neuron, 24, 95104.
Widdows, D. (2004). Geometry and meaning. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Yap, M. J., Pexman, P. M., Wellsby, M., Hargreaves, I. S., & Huff, M. J. (2012). An abundance of riches: Cross-task comparisons of semantic richness effects in visual word recognition. Frontier of Human Neuroscience, 6. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00072
Yap, M. J., Tan, S. E., Pexman, P. M., & Hargreaves, I. S. (2011). Is more always better? Effects of semantic richness on lexical decision, speeded pronunciation, and semantic classification. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 742750.
Yates, M., Locker, L. Jr., & Simpson, G. B. (2003). Semantic and phonological influences on the processing of words and pseudohomophones. Memory & Cognition, 31, 856866.
Zipf, G. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least-effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.


Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Word meaning in word identification during reading: Co-occurrence-based semantic neighborhood density effects



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.