Using a lexical decision task in which two primes appeared simultaneously in the visual field for 150 msec followed by a target word, two experiments examined semantic priming from attended and unattended primes as a function of both the separation between the primes in the visual field and the prime-target stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA). In the first experiment significant priming effects were found for both the attended and unattended prime words, though the effect was much greater for the attended words. In addition, and also for both attention conditions, priming showed a tendency to increase with increasing eccentricity (2.3°, 3.3°, and 4.3°) between the prime words in the visual field at the long (550 and 850 msec) but not at the short (250 msec) prime-target SOA. In the second experiment the prime stimuli were either two words (W-W) or one word and five Xs (W-X). We manipulated the degree of eccentricity (2° and 3.6°) between the prime stimuli and used a prime-target SOA of 850 msec. Again significant priming was found for both the attended and unattended words but only the W-W condition showed a decrement in priming as a function of the separation between the primes; this decrement came to produce negative priming for the unattended word at the narrow (2°) separation. These results are discussed in relation to the semantic processing of parafoveal words and the inhibitory effects of focused attention.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllportD. A.TipperS. P.ChmielN. R. J. (1985). Perceptual integration and post-categorical filtering. PosnerM. I.MarinO.Attention & performance XI.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.107–132.
2.
BjorkE. L.MurrayJ. T. (1977). On the nature of input channels in visual processing. Psychological Review84, 472–484.
3.
Bouma (1978). Visual search and reading: Eye movements and functional visual field: A tutorial review. Attention & performance VII.RequimJ.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.115–147.
4.
CarrT. H.PollatsekA.PosnerM. I. (1981). What does the visual system know about words?Perception & Psychophysics29, 183–190.
5.
DallasM.MerikleP. M. (1976). Semantic processing of nonattended visual information. Canadian Journal of Psychology30, 15–21.
6.
DarkV. J.JohnstonW. A.Myles-WorsleyM.FarahM. J. (1985). Levels of selection and capacity limits. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General114, 472–497.
7.
DeutschJ. A.DeutschD. (1963). Attention: Some theoretical considerations. Psychological Review70, 80–90.
8.
Di PaceE.LongoniA. M.Zoccolotti (1991). Semantic processing of unattended parafoveal words. Acta Psychologica77, 21–34.
9.
EriksenB. A.EriksenC. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification on a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics16, 143–149.
10.
EriksenC. W.HoffmanJ. E. (1973). The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding from visual display. Perception & Psychophysics14, 155–160.
11.
GathercoleS. E.BroadbentD. E. (1987). Spatial factors in visual attention: some compensatory effects of location and time of arrival of nontargets. Perception16, 433–443.
12.
GattiS. V.EgethH. (1978). Failure of spatial selectivity in vision. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society11, 181–184.
13.
HoffmanJ. E.MacMillanF. W. (1985). Is semantic priming automatic?Attention & performance XI.PosnerM. I.MarinO.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.585–600.
14.
InhoffA. W. (1982). Parafoveal word perception: A further case against semantic preprocessing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance8, 137–145.
15.
InhoffA. W.RaynerK. (1980). Parafoveal word perception: A case against semantic preprocessing. Perception & Psychophysics27, 457–464.
16.
JohnstonW. A.DarkV. J. (1982). In defense of intraperceptual theories of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance8, 407–421.
17.
JohnstonW. A.DarkV. J. (1986). Selective attention. Annual Review of Psychology37, 43–75.
18.
KahnemanD.ChajczykD. (1983). Test of the automacity of reading: Dilution of stroop effect by color irrelevant stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance9, 497–509.
19.
KahnemanD.HenikA. (1981). Perceptual organization and attention. Perceptual organization.KubovyM.PomerantzJ. R.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.181–211.
20.
KahnemanD.TreismanA. (1984). Changing views of attention and automacity. Varieties of attention.ParasuramanR.DaviesR.New York: Academic Press22–61.
21.
KahnemanD.TreismanA.BurkellJ. (1983). The cost of visual filtering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Peformance9, 510–522.
22.
KeeleS. W.NeillW. T. (1978). Mechanisms of attention. Handbook of perception.CarteretteE. C.FriedmanM. P.New York: Academic Press Vol. 9, 3–47.
23.
KeppelG. (1982). Design and analysis. A researcher's handbookEnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
24.
LaBergeD. (1975). Acquisition of automatic processing of perceptual and associative learning. Attention & performance V.RabbittP. M. A.DornicS.New York: Academic Press173–186.
25.
LoweD. G. (1979). Strategies, context, and the mechanism of response inhibition. Memory & Cognition7, 382–389.
26.
LoweD. G. (1985). Further investigations of inhibitory mechanisms in attention. Memory & Cognition13, 74–80.
27.
McCauleyC.ParmeleeC. M.SperberR. D.CarrT. H. (1980). Early extraction of meaning from pictures and its relation to conscious identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance6, 265–276.
28.
MerikleP. M.GorewichN. J. (1979). Spatial selectivity in vision: Field size depends upon noise size. Bulletin of the Psychology Society14, 343–346.
29.
NeillW. T. (1977). Inhibitory and facilitatory processes in attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance3, 444–450.
30.
NeillW. T.WestberryR. L. (1987). Selective attention and the suppression of cognitive noise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition13, 327–334.
31.
PaapK. R.NewsomeS. L. (1981). Parafoveal information is not sufficient to produce semantic or visual priming. Perception & Psychophysics29, 457–466.
32.
PosnerM. I. (1978). Chronometric explorations of mindHillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
33.
PosnerM. I.SnyderC. R. R. (1975). Facilitation and inhibition in the processing of signals. Attention & performance V.RabbittP. M. A.DornicS.New York: Academic Press669–681.
34.
ShafferW. O.LaBergeD. (1979). Automatic semantic processing of unattended words. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior18, 413–426.
35.
SotoP.SebastiánM. V.GarcíaE.del AmoT. (1982). Categorización y Datos Normativos en EspañaMadrid: Eds. Cantoblanco.
36.
TipperS. P. (1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory priming by ignored objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology37A, 571–590.
37.
UnderwoodG. (1976). Semantic interference from unattended printed words. British Journal of Psychology67, 327–338.
38.
UnderwoodG. (1981). Lexical recognition of embedded unattended words: Some implications for reading processes. Acta Psychologica47, 267–283.
39.
UnderwoodG.RustedJ.ThwaitesS. (1983). Parafoveal words are effective in both hemifields: Preattentive processing of semantic and phonological codes. Perception12, 213–221.
