{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013013698630136987, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002054794520547945, 'mean_word_length': 5.493333333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Processing category terms in context: instantiation and the structure of semantic categories.

The present study sought to determine if semantic categories processed in context are encoded as particular exemplars. In Experiment 1 we replicated previous results on an extended and modified set of stimuli by showing that when subjects read sentences containing a category term in a context designed to bias encoding toward an atypical exemplar, the atypical exemplar serves as a better retrieval cue than a typical exemplar. In Experiment 2 we tested whether these cued-recall results were due to processes operating at encoding or retrieval. The pattern of semantic interference obtained in a modified Stroop paradigm clearly contradicted the position that readers routinely encode general terms as examples, or "instantiations." In particular, there was significant color-naming interference when typical exemplars served as targets even when preceded by sentences designed to bias encoding toward an atypical exemplar. No significant color-naming interference was generated to atypical exemplars. Experiment 3 ruled out the possibility that differences between the cued-recall and Stroop results in the first two experiments were due to encoding strategy differences. It was concluded that assigning a referent to a category term is not a routine activity in sentence encoding and that processing category terms entails activation of summary representations.