Re-evaluating age-of-acquisition effects: are they simply cumulative-frequency effects?

The time it takes to read or produce a word is influenced by the word's age of acquisition (AoA) and its frequency (e.g. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 12 (1973) 85). Lewis (Cognition 71 (1999) B23) suggested that a parsimonious explanation would be that it is the total number of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inCognition Vol. 78; no. 2; pp. 189 - 205
Main Authors Lewis, Michael B, Gerhand, Simon, Ellis, Hadyn D
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Amsterdam Elsevier B.V 01.02.2001
Elsevier Science
Subjects
Age Factors
Age-of-acquisition effects
Biological and medical sciences
Child
Child Development
Cognition
Cumulative-frequency effects
Data Interpretation, Statistical
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Humans
Language
Language Development
Learning
Linear Models
Linguistics
Miscellaneous
Models, Psychological
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychophysiology
Re-evaluating
Reaction Time
Speech
Cumulative-frequency effects
Re-evaluating
Age-of-acquisition effects
Human
Word
Language
Word frequency
Cognition
Experimental study
Acquisition
Age
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:The time it takes to read or produce a word is influenced by the word's age of acquisition (AoA) and its frequency (e.g. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 12 (1973) 85). Lewis (Cognition 71 (1999) B23) suggested that a parsimonious explanation would be that it is the total number of times a word has been encountered that predicts reaction times. Such a cumulative-frequency hypothesis, however, has always been rejected because the statistical effects of AoA and frequency are additive. Here, it is demonstrated mathematically that the cumulative-frequency hypothesis actually predicts such results when applied to curvilinear learning. Further, the data from four influential studies (two of which claim support for independent effects of AoA and frequency) are re-analyzed to reveal that, in fact, they are consistent with a cumulative-frequency hypothesis. The conclusion drawn is that there is no evidence with which to refute the most parsimonious of explanations, i.e. cumulative frequency can account for both frequency and AoA effects.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
ObjectType-Review-1
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ISSN:0010-0277
1873-7838
DOI:10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00117-7