=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1419/paper0009
|storemode=property
|title=The Effects of Age of Acquisition and Semantic Congruency on Famous Person Category Verification
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0009.pdf
|volume=Vol-1419
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/eapcogsci/Smith-SparkMV15
}}
==The Effects of Age of Acquisition and Semantic Congruency on Famous Person Category Verification==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0009.pdf
The effects of age of acquisition and semantic congruency on famous person
category verification
James H. Smith-Spark (smithspj@lsbu.ac.uk)
Department of Psychology, London South Bank University,
103 Borough Road, London, SE1 0AA, UK
Viv Moore (v.moore@gold.ac.uk)
Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London,
New Cross, London, SE14 6NW, London, UK
Tim Valentine (t.valentine@gold.ac.uk)
Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London,
New Cross, London, SE14 6NW, London, UK
Abstract sought to examine whether AoA effects could be obtained
on a semantic processing task requiring responses to the
The age of acquisition (AoA) effect, a processing advantage
for items learnt earlier in life, affects naming and making names of famous people. Mature adults were presented with
familiarity decisions about famous people. However, its a category verification task in which they were required to
influence on semantic processing tasks involving celebrity indicate whether the name of a famous person was
stimuli is equivocal. In a category verification task designed associated with a particular area of fame. Some interaction
to explore this issue further, mature adults were shown an between AoA and semantic congruency has been suggested
area of fame, followed by a famous person’s name. They in the processing of words by Ghyselinck, Custers, and
were asked to indicate whether the area of fame and the
celebrity matched. Stimulus congruency and AoA were
Brysbaert (2004). A natural consequence of the
manipulated orthogonally, with familiarity and facial categorization task allowed congruency also to be explored
distinctiveness being controlled. Faster and more accurate to determine whether further (and stronger) evidence for this
responses were produced when the area of fame and the interaction would be found when processing famous names.
celebrity matched. Faster and more accurate responses were Age of acquisition effects have been found on a number
made to early-acquired celebrities but the interaction fell short of different types of semantic processing tasks in the lexical
of significance but is consistent with that reported for lexical and object processing domains (e.g., Belke et al., 2005;
processing. With adequate control of extraneous variables and
an extended distance between stimulus groups, AoA would Brysbaert, van Wijnendaele, & De Deyne, 2000; Ghyselinck
seem to have an influence on the semantic processing of et al., 2004; Johnston & Barry, 2005). These findings have
famous people and interacts near significance with been used to support a hypothesis that proposes that the
congruency. The results are considered in the light of multiple effects of AoA originate, at least partly, from a semantic
loci theories of AoA. locus (e.g., Brysbaert et al., 2000).
The semantic hypothesis argues that the greater the level
Keywords: Age of acquisition; Semantic processing;
of involvement of semantic representations in task
Congruency effects; Name categorization
performance, the greater the effects of AoA are likely to be
(e.g. Brysbaert et al., 2000). Other loci are not ruled out by
Introduction
this account, but the semantic processing system is posited
People are faster and more accurate when processing words to play a role in producing AoA effects. Brysbaert et al.
and objects that they have learnt earlier in life than those argue that the order in which items are acquired plays a
acquired later (e.g., Morrison & Ellis, 1995; Moore, Smith- defining role in the way the semantic system is organized,
Spark, & Valentine, 2004). This phenomenon, known as the with the meanings of later-acquired concepts depending on
age of acquisition (AoA) effect, has been reported across a those of earlier-acquired items. The semantic hub network
range of different processing tasks (see e.g., Juhasz, 2005, model of Steyvers and Tenenbaum (2005) is often cited in
for a review). Moreover, its influence has been shown to support of the semantic hypothesis (e.g., Ghyselinck et al.,
remain robust after controlling for other variables known to 2004). According to this model, it is the greater number of
influence processing speed, most importantly word semantic connections to other nodes (or concepts) possessed
frequency (e.g., Cortese & Khanna, 2007; Peréz, 2007; by early-acquired items in their representational network
Turner, Valentine, & Ellis, 1998). Whilst AoA effects on that is responsible for AoA effects rather than the order in
naming and familiarity decisions are also well documented which nodes are acquired per se. Thus, semantic effects are
in the people processing domain (e.g., Moore & Valentine, argued to be superordinate to AoA effects under the
1998, 1999), their influence on semantic processing tasks semantic hub network account. The predictions of the
remains both underexplored and equivocal (e.g., Lewis, Steyvers and Tenenbaum model should generalize from the
1999a; Moore, 1998, 2003). Given this, the present paper
84
processing of words to the processing of famous people (see within his model, Lewis argued that AoA was a significant
Smith-Spark, Moore, & Valentine, 2012, 2013). Moreover, predictor of RT on a semantic processing task.
the semantic hypothesis argues for AoA across different However, Moore et al. (1999) identified a number of
processing domains (e.g., Brysbaert et al., 2000). potential confounds that may have been present in Lewis’
There are several lines of evidence against the semantic data (see Lewis, 1999b, for a response). Firstly, the measure
hypothesis. Firstly, Izura and Ellis’ (2004) investigation of of AoA was an estimate by the experimenter of the number
second language (L2) learning indicated that AoA effects in of instances that should have been in the participants’
L2 reflect the order in which words have been learnt in L2 memory (i.e., “familiarity”, Moore & Valentine, 1998; or
rather than the age at which the corresponding words were “frequency of encounter”, Moore, 2003), and no subjective
learnt in the first language (L1). It is difficult for the measures of AoA, familiarity, or facial distinctiveness were
semantic hypothesis to explain this result, as semantic taken from the participants themselves. Such ratings have
representations should be shared between L1 and L2. Izura typically been taken when investigating both frequency
and Ellis argue that this finding indicates that AoA effects (e.g., Valentine & Moore, 1995) and AoA effects in the
are not limited solely to the semantic level of representation. processing of famous people (e.g., Moore & Valentine,
Secondly, Menenti and Burani (2007) compared 1998, 1999). In the lexical processing domain, it has been
participants’ responses on a lexical decision to those on a argued that obtaining subjective ratings from participants is
semantic categorization task. In contrast to what would be superior to obtaining frequency measures from word
predicted by the semantic hypothesis, the magnitude of the corpora (e.g., Gernsbacher, 1984; although see Brysbaert &
AoA effect was no greater on the semantic categorization Cortese, 2011, for a dissenting view). There is no reason to
task than on the lexical decision task. Thirdly, data from the assume that it should be different in the famous name
processing of famous names argue against the pre-eminence processing domain and this has been argued elsewhere (e.g.,
of semantic connectedness over AoA proposed by Steyvers Smith-Spark et al., 2012). The absence of subjective
and Tenenbaum (2005). Smith-Spark et al. (2013) found a measures is compounded by a further assumption that actors
strong main effect of AoA in the absence of a main effect of were best known for their one soap-opera role. However,
a semantic variable (the amount of biographical information fame preceded the programme for some actors, whilst other
known about a celebrity) on a famous name familiarity celebrities had left the programmes to appear in
decision task. However, there was a role for the semantic contemporary top-rated British television series and plays.
processing system in mediating the processing of late- Furthermore, the stimuli represented close semantic
acquired celebrities. Knowing more about a celebrity led to associates, where response latencies could have been
faster responses to late-acquired, but not early-acquired, affected by semantic or associative priming (Bruce &
stimuli. Moreover, Smith-Spark et al. (2012, 2013) have Valentine, 1985). A raised level of semantic activation may
argued that AoA effects on semantic processing may have occurred due to the large number of celebrities derived
become more salient on people processing tasks when the from the same category (Sergent & Poncet, 1990).
semantic processing system is involved to a greater extent. Reanalysis of the data by Moore (2003) suggested a more
Typically, the investigation of AoA effects in the people parsimonious interpretation of the results. Classification
processing domain has used celebrities as stimuli. A similar times were found to be significantly faster for pairs of soap
processing advantage for early-acquired celebrities has been actors who were from the same soap family than pairs who
found when participants are asked to name the faces of were not. Examination of the stimuli indicated that there
celebrities (e.g., Moore & Valentine, 1998), read aloud their were more familial pairs of early-acquired celebrities. As a
printed names (Moore & Valentine, 1999) and to make result, a greater level of semantic priming may have
familiarity decisions about names or faces (e.g., Moore & occurred when responses were made to early-acquired
Valentine, 1999; Smith-Spark, Moore, & Valentine, 2012, famous people and may have led to Lewis’ findings.
2013). However, the contribution of the semantic processing Moore (2003) did not obtain a processing advantage for
system to the AoA effects reported in the people processing early-acquired famous people on a number of semantic
domain is less clear. classification tasks, despite robust AoA effects being
Lewis (1999a) proposed an instance-based model of AoA evident when the same celebrity stimuli were presented in
effects to account for the influence of AoA on recognition naming and perceptual tasks (Moore & Valentine, 1998,
and naming tasks. This model explains the categorization 1999). Of Moore’s experiments, six tasks revealed a non-
speed of a stimulus as a function consisting of a negative significant processing advantage for early-acquired items
power of the number of instances of a stimulus in memory and three revealed an advantage for late-acquired stimuli, of
(i.e. its frequency of encounter) and the time period over which only one difference was statistically significant (and
which the stimulus was encountered and a positive power of even this was not replicated in a subsequent experiment).
the time since last exposure to it (i.e., its recency). Lewis’ Moore suggested that the lack of an early-acquired
demonstration of a cumulative frequency effect was based advantage on these semantic tasks involving the faces or
on a study in which the participants categorized faces as names of celebrities may have been due to only young
those of actors appearing in one of two very well-known adults aged 18 to 25 years being tested. In her 2003 studies,
British television soap operas. Whilst not explicitly tested an early-acquired celebrity was rated as having been
85
acquired between six to 12 years of age and a late-acquired items was twice the size of that for late-acquired stimuli, but
celebrity was rated as having been acquired after 18 years of this congruency x AoA interaction fell short of statistical
age. The two stimulus groups were, thus, separated by a significance (p = .10). Ghyselinck et al. argued that this
period of only six years. Moore argued that individual and result suggested that the meanings of early-acquired words
familial interests will influence the extent to which children were activated faster than those of late-acquired words.
are exposed to certain celebrities (e.g., with, perhaps, a Consistent with previous research on people processing
sporting, musical, or political bias). Such arbitrary tasks (e.g., Moore & Valentine, 1998, 1999; Smith-Spark et
influences would not present the same stimulus selection al., 2012, 2013), it was predicted that an AoA effect would
problem in object and lexical studies except with the most emerge after careful control of familiarity and facial
technical and domain-specific of stimuli. In other words, distinctiveness. A congruency effect was also hypothesized,
people’s language experiences within the same culture are in accordance with previous findings of semantic
likely to be more similar than their interests and hobbies, congruency effects in different domains (words: e.g., De
which may diverge considerably and, therefore, lessen the Houwer, 1998; faces: e.g., Barrett & Rugg, 1989). Faster
chances of uncovering an AoA effect. RTs were expected on trials where there was a match
Given the concerns relating to both Lewis (1999a) and between the area of fame and the subsequently presented
Moore (2003), it has yet to be demonstrated conclusively celebrity. Whilst Ghyselinck et al.’s (2004) AoA x
that AoA can influence semantic classifications on person congruency interaction fell short of statistical significance, a
processing tasks. Therefore, the current experiment was run similar pattern of results was expected with famous names.
in order to determine whether a semantic AoA effect on
people processing could be found after removing the Method
problems identified by Moore (2003; see also Lewis,
1999b). To this end, Moore’s (2003) category verification Participants
task was used. Mature adult participants were requested to Twenty-four mature adults (14 female, 10 male; mean age =
make Yes/No judgements as to whether there was a match 68 years, SD = 9) received a small honorarium for
between an area of fame (such as politics or film) and a participating. All 24 reported that they had been UK
subsequently presented celebrity (in the form of a residents for their entire lives.
photograph of his or her face). Equal numbers of congruent
trials (in which the celebrity matched the preceding area of Materials
fame) and incongruent trials (in which the celebrity did not
A PC running the E-Prime experiment generator software
match the presented semantic category) were presented.
package (Psychology Software Tools, Inc., Sharpsburg, PA)
Two important alterations were made to Moore’s
was used to administer the experiment. Responses were
experimental design. Firstly, a greater number of stimuli
made using a push-button response box.
were used. Secondly, mature adults (aged 40+ years) were
Ninety-six famous face stimuli were selected from Smith-
recruited as participants in order to permit a greater
Spark et al.’s (2006) database of famous names. The stimuli
separation between early- and late-acquired items (resulting
were manipulated in such a way as to provide subgroups
in a gap of 30 years rather than six years). Stimuli were
that were orthogonally different on measures of AoA but
selected based on ratings taken from a large group of mature
matched for familiarity and facial distinctiveness. Twenty-
adults who did not take part in the experiment (Smith-Spark
four stimuli were drawn from each of the four areas of fame
et al., 2006).
(comedy, film, politics, and music).
A relationship between AoA and semantic congruency
Of these 96 stimuli, twenty-four early-acquired and 24
was expected on the basis of previous research. De Houwer
late-acquired celebrities were deployed in congruent trials,
(1998) found that faster responses were elicited when a
where there was a match between area of fame and the
participant’s verbal response was congruent with the
famous person. Another 48 celebrity stimuli were used in
meaning of the stimulus and slower responses were
incongruent trials. There were, likewise, 24 early-acquired
produced when the response and the stimulus were
and 24 late-acquired famous names making up the
incongruent. Ghyselinck et al. (2004) adapted De Houwer’s
incongruent trials. A one-way analysis of variance
task to investigate how AoA influenced semantic
conducted on the a priori AoA ratings taken from Smith-
processing. Ghyselinck et al. matched stimuli for familiarity
Spark et al. (2006) database indicated a significant
and manipulated AoA. Half their participants were
difference between early- and late-acquired celebrities
instructed to say ‘living’ when presented with words in
(F(3,92) = 117.04, p < .001). Post hoc Bonferroni
lower case and to say “non-living” to words presented in
comparisons indicated that the significant differences in
upper case. The remaining participants were asked to do the
AoA were found between both early-acquired stimulus
reverse. Half the words presented to participants belonged to
groupings and both incongruent stimulus groupings (all p <
living things and half to non-living. Ghyselinck et al. found
.001). No other differences were significant. The Smith-
significant effects of congruency (both by participants and
Spark et al. database was also used to match the stimulus
by items) on RT and a significant effect of AoA by items.
groupings for the number of times their names had been
The magnitude of the congruency effect on early-acquired
generated (without recourse to reference works; indicating
86
the extent to which the celebrities were to the fore of age 15 years, and then rising in 10 year increments to 10,
participants’ thoughts), the number of syllables in their being a celebrity acquired before the age of 85).
names, their subjective familiarity, and their facial
distinctiveness (F ≤ 1.30, p > .05). Facial distinctiveness has Results
been found to affect RTs even when names rather than faces Responses more than 2.5 SD from the overall mean RT of
are used as stimuli (Moore, 1998). each participant were removed from the data set prior to the
analyses being performed. A total of 54 trials out of 2303
Design were removed (2.34%).
Findings can be generalized over both participants (F1) and Following the data trimming, two stimuli were left out of
items (F2) by the use of multilevel modelling analysis (e.g., the analysis, one due to low accuracy of response (Tom
Brysbaert, 2007). Separate multilevel modelling analyses Jones = 58%) and one (Rod Stewart) due to participant
were performed on the reaction time (RT; ms) and accuracy ratings placing the stimulus in the late-acquired rather than
(%) data with AoA (early-acquired vs. late-acquired) and the early-acquired grouping (mean AoA rating = 6.14).
stimulus congruency (congruent vs. incongruent) were All remaining items were responded to with accuracies in
entered as fixed factors, together with the AoA x stimulus excess of 70% correct. The analyses which follow were
congruency interaction. Participant number and stimulus based on this reduced data set.
number were entered into the analysis as random factors.
Text was presented in reverse video Courier New font. Participant ratings
The famous names appeared in 12-point and the semantic The participant ratings confirmed the validity of the a
categories in 24-point font. priori allocation of congruent stimuli to the early- and late-
acquired groupings. The early-acquired congruent items
Procedure were rated as having been acquired significantly earlier than
The participants gave their informed consent to take part in the late-acquired congruent stimuli, F(1, 45) = 131.59, MSE
the experiment. They were told that on each trial they would = .496, p < .001, ηp2 = .745. The congruent stimulus groups
be shown the name of one of four areas of fame (comedy, were well matched on ratings of familiarity, F(1, 45) < 1,
film, music, and politics), followed by the name of a famous MSE = .364, p = .366, and facial distinctiveness, F(1, 45) <
person. The participants were asked to indicate as quickly 1, MSE = .702, p = .913.
and accurately as possible whether or not the famous name
matched the preceding area of fame, by pressing the Reaction time
appropriate key on a response box (labelled ‘Yes’ for Multilevel modelling analyses indicated that faster
matching and ‘No’ for non-matching). At the start of each responses were made to early-acquired words (mean =
trial, an orienting asterisk appeared on the monitor screen 1561ms, SD = 526) than late-acquired words (mean =
for 700ms. The asterisk was replaced by a black screen and 1660ms, SD = 540). This effect of AoA on RT was found to
the presentation of a 2000 Hz tone (250ms in duration). One be highly significant, F(1, 2053) = 18.03, p < .001.
of the four areas of fame was then shown for 1500ms, Congruent stimuli (mean = 1528ms, SD = 491) were
followed by the famous name presented centrally on the responded to more rapidly than incongruent stimuli (mean =
screen. A Yes/No push-button response terminated the 1697ms, SD = 566). The effect of congruency was also
display and initiated the next trial. In order to familiarize statistically highly significant, F(1, 2053) = 52.64, p < . 001.
participants with the task demands, a practice session of 15 There was a trend towards a greater influence of
trials preceded the experiment. congruency on early- than late-acquired stimuli (see Figure
At the end of the task, the participants rated the congruent 1), but the AoA x stimulus congruency interaction fell short
items1 for familiarity, distinctiveness, and AoA as follows: of statistical significance, F(1, 2053) = 2.91, p = .088.
Familiarity: How often each celebrity had been
encountered over time and across different media (from 1 = Accuracy
completely unknown through to 7 = very familiar). Multilevel modelling analyses indicated that semantic
Distinctiveness: How easy each famous person would be categorization decisions were more accurate to the names of
to spot on a crowded railway platform based on facial 1
Participant ratings were not taken on the distractor items at the
features alone (Valentine & Bruce, 1986). Ratings were time of testing. The ratings were limited to congruent items in
made from 1, being a ‘typical’ face, hard to distinguish, to 7, order to retain the goodwill of participants (who would otherwise
being a highly distinctive face, easy to pick out in a crowd. have had to rate 96 stimuli on each of the three dimensions). Data
AoA: The participants rated when they first became aware collection was conducted some years ago, so it would not be
of each celebrity on a 10-point scale (with a score of 1 possible to collect ratings even if the participants could be traced.
indicating a famous person that the participant first became However, given that the participant ratings for the congruent items
aware of before the age of five years, a score of 2 showed strong positive correlations with the a priori ratings
representing a celebrity first encountered before 10 years of (familiarity, r(48) = .761, p < .001; distinctiveness, r(48) = .838, p
< .001; AoA, r(48) = .965, p < .001), it is likely that a similar
age, a score of 3 reflecting a famous person acquired before pattern would emerge with the incongruent items as they came
from the same database.
87
decisions (e.g., Moore & Valentine, 1998). In previous
studies (e.g., Moore, 2003), the range of AoA values over
which stimuli could be selected was constrained by the
relative youth of the participants. The use of a mature
population in the present study allowed for a much wider
separation between the early- and late-acquired AoA
stimulus groupings. In combination with the selection of
only the most familiar celebrities (based on scores from
Smith-Spark et al., 2006, and validated by participant
ratings) and a task drawing on greater levels of semantic
processing (Smith-Spark et al., 2012, 2013), this has
allowed semantic AoA effects on the processing of people’s
names to be captured. Regardless of whether a participant
has a particular subjective interest in a given domain of
fame or individual celebrity, it is hard to escape the mention
of highly famous people in the media. Less stringent control
in the matching of stimuli and the use of younger adult
participants may thus explain the previous null results on
Figure 1: AoA x congruency interaction for RT. tasks involving the semantic processing of famous names
(Moore, 2003).
early-acquired celebrities (mean = .93, SD =.25) than to the Stimulus congruency and AoA would seem to interact at
names of late-acquired famous people (mean = .89, SD around statistical significance across different processing
=.31). The effect of AoA on accuracy was found to be very domains. This finding adds further weight to Ghyselinck et
significant, F(1, 2251) = 9.69, p = .002. al.’s argument that there is greater semantic activation for
Responses on congruent trials were also more accurate early-acquired stimuli. More generally, the results argue for
(mean = .93, SD = .26) than those on incongruent trials multiple loci of AoA effects (in line with current AoA
(mean = .89, SD = 0.31). Congruency also had a very theories; e.g., Brysbaert et al., 2000; Ellis & Lambon Ralph,
significant influence on accuracy, F(1, 2251) = 8.95, p = 2000; Moore & Valentine, 1999; Moore, 2003). These
.003. consider AoA to be a general property of learning which can
There was no interaction between AoA and congruency, be found across processing tasks and domains. The current
F(1, 2251) < 1, p = .944. findings extend the empirically reported effects of AoA on
semantic processing from words and objects to people
Discussion processing, suggesting that AoA influences semantic
In contrast to previous studies of semantic processing processing across a range of domains.
involving famous names (e.g., Moore, 2003), a significant
effect of AoA was found, with the familiarity and Acknowledgments
distinctiveness of the stimuli being well-matched on both a This research was funded by an Economic and Social
priori and participant ratings. The participants were faster to Science Research Council grant (R000429624208) awarded
semantically categorize early-acquired than late-acquired to Viv Moore and Tim Valentine. The authors would like to
famous names. These findings are consistent with those of thank Andrew Ellis and Simon De Deyne for their helpful
Lewis (1999a), who also found a significant effect of AoA comments on an earlier version of this work.
on the semantic categorization of faces rather than names.
A congruency effect was also found in the current
experiment. The participants were significantly faster and
References
more accurate in responding to congruent items than they Barrett, S. E., & Rugg, M. D. (1989). Event-related
were when a mismatch occurred between the semantic potentials and the semantic matching of faces.
category and the famous name. Age of acquisition and Neuropsychologia, 27, 913-922.
stimulus congruency were not found to interact Belke, E., Brysbaert, M., Meyer, A. S., & Ghyselinck, M.
significantly, although there was a trend towards faster (2005). Age of acquisition effects in picture naming:
responding to early-acquired than late-acquired congruent Evidence for a lexical-semantic competition hypothesis.
items. This is consistent with the pattern of data reported by Cognition, 96, B45-54.
Ghyselinck et al. (2004) on a lexical processing task. The Bruce, V., & Valentine, T. (1985). Identity priming in the
findings thus extend their research on AoA and stimulus recognition of familiar faces. British Journal of
congruency from lexical processing to people processing. Psychology, 76, 373-383.
It would appear that AoA confers a similar advantage on Brysbaert, M. (2007). “The language-as-fixed-effect
the semantic processing of the names of early-acquired fallacy”: Some simple SPSS solutions to a complex
famous people as it does on perceptual Yes-No familiarity problem (Version 2.0). Royal Holloway, University of
London.
88
Brysbaert, M., & Cortese, M. J. (2011). Do the effects of Some words to talk about words (pp. 67-94). New York:
subjective frequency and age of acquisition survive better Nova Science Publications.
word frequency norms? Quarterly Journal of Moore, V., Smith-Spark, J. H., & Valentine, T. (2004). The
Experimental Psychology, 64, 545–559. effects of age of acquisition on object recognition.
Brysbaert, M., & Ghyselinck, M. (2006). The effect of age European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 417-439.
of acquisition: Partly frequency related, partly frequency Moore, V., & Valentine, T. (1998). Naming faces: The
independent. Visual Cognition, 13, 992–1011. effect of age of acquisition on speed and accuracy of
Brysbaert, M., van Wijnendaele, I., & De Deyne, S. (2000). naming famous faces. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Age-of-acquisition effects in semantic processing tasks. Psychology, 51, 485-513.
Acta Psychologica, 104, 215-226. Moore, V., & Valentine, T. (1999). The effects of age of
Cortese, M. J., & Khanna, M. M. (2007). Age of acquisition acquisition in processing famous faces and names:
predicts naming and lexical-decision performance above Exploring the locus and proposing a mechanism. In M.
and beyond 22 other predictor variables: An analysis of Hahn & S. C. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-
2,342 words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental first annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society
Psychology, 60, 1072-1082. (pp. 416-421). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
De Houwer, J. (1998). The semantic Simon effect. Moore, V., Valentine, T., & Turner, J. (1999). Age-of-
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A, 683- acquisition and cumulative frequency have independent
688. effects. Cognition, 72, 305-309.
Ellis, A. W., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2000). Age of Morrison, C. M., & Ellis, A. W. (1995). The roles of word
acquisition effects in adult lexical processing reflect loss frequency and age of acquisition in word naming and
of plasticity in maturing systems: Insights from lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
connectionist networks. Journal of Experimental Learning, Memory & Cognition, 21, 116-133.
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1103- Peréz, M. A. (2007). Age of acquisition persists as the main
1123. factor in picture naming when cumulative word frequency
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of and frequency trajectory are controlled. Quarterly Journal
inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and of Experimental Psychology, 60, 32-42.
orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Sergent, J., & Poncet, M. (1990). From covert to overt
Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 256–281. recognition in a prosopagnosic patient. Brain, 113, 989-
Ghyselinck, M., Custers, R., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). The 1004.
effect of age of acquisition in visual word processing: Smith-Spark, J. H., Moore, V., & Valentine, T. (2012).
Further evidence for the semantic hypothesis. Journal of Long-term age of acquisition effects in famous name
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and processing. Acta Psychologica, 139, 202-211.
Cognition, 30, 550-554. Smith-Spark, J. H., Moore, V., & Valentine, T. (2013).
Izura, C., & Ellis, A. W. (2004). Age of acquisition effects Determinants of famous name processing speed: Age of
in translation judgement tasks. Journal of Memory and acquisition versus semantic connectedness. Acta
Language, 50, 165-181. Psychologica, 142, 230-237.
Johnston, R. A., & Barry, C. (2005). Age of acquisition Smith-Spark, J. H., Moore, V., Valentine, T., & Sherman, S.
effects in the semantic processing of pictures. Memory & M. (2006). Stimulus generation, ratings, phoneme counts,
Cognition, 33, 905-912. and group classifications for 696 famous people by
Juhasz, B. J. (2005). Age-of-acquisition effects in word and British adults over 40 years of age. Behavior Research
picture identification. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 684- Methods, 38, 590-597.
712. Steyvers, M., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005). The large-scale
Lewis, M. B. (1999a). Age of acquisition in face structure of semantic networks: Statistical analyses and a
categorisation: Is there an instance-based account? model of semantic growth. Cognitive Science, 29, 41-78.
Cognition, 71, B23-B39. Turner, J. E., Valentine, T., & Ellis, A. W. (1998).
Lewis, M. B. (1999b). Are age-of-acquisition effects Contrasting effects of age of acquisition and word
cumulative-frequency effects in disguise? A reply to frequency on auditory and visual lexical decision.
Moore, Valentine and Turner (1999). Cognition, 72, 311- Memory & Cognition, 26, 1282-1291.
316. Valentine, T., & Bruce, V. (1986). The effects of
Menenti, L., & Burani, C. (2007). What causes the effect of distinctiveness in recognising and classifying object faces.
age of acquisition in lexical processing? Quarterly Perception, 15, 525-535.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 652-660. Valentine, T., & Moore, V. (1995). Naming faces: The
Moore, V. M. (1998). The effects of age of acquisition in effects of facial distinctiveness and surname frequency.
processing people’s faces and names. Unpublished PhD Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 879-
thesis, University of Durham, UK. 894.
Moore, V. (2003). An alternative account for the effects of
age of acquisition. In P. Bonin (Ed.), Mental lexicon:
89