ArticleBehavior research methods2026
Automatic quantification of lexical ambiguity using large-scale word association data.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most words in a language are lexically ambiguous and are associated with multiple meanings that vary in their frequency and relatedness. Although ambiguity is a fundamental property of language, there are extensive issues with existing measures of this construct. For instance, dictionary-based classifications and subjective ratings of meaning number and frequency struggle to capture the graded nature of ambiguity and, by proxy, its impact on cognition and performance in experimental tasks. It is also difficult to scale subjective measures to the full lexicon. We introduce a novel, automated framework to measure lexical ambiguity based on word association data from the Small World of Words (SWOW) project. We apply community detection algorithms to association graphs to quantify both the number and distribution of semantic communities for each word. This in turn allows us to derive graded representations of meaning frequency and relatedness. To better understand our new metrics, we compare them to previously published subjective norms, and establish their validity by showing that they predict lexical decision performance in English and Rioplatense Spanish. Furthermore, our results reveal cross-linguistic differences in lexical ambiguity-Spanish is less ambiguous than English overall-which we hypothesize is due to typological differences between the languages. Our validated framework contributes novel insights for computational and psycholinguistic models of semantic processing, and offers a scalable, automated, and language-independent framework for quantifying different facets of lexical ambiguity. We provide all of our code and ambiguity measures for approximately 7,000 words in both languages to facilitate their use by other researchers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42270956What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.