Forward versus backward semantic priming: What movement dynamics during lexical decision reveal

Abstract

Separate processes underlying forward (e.g., crescent MOON) and backward (e.g., office POST) priming have previously been inferred from button-press lexical decision response times, with an automatic prospective mechanism and a strategic retrospective mechanism presumed responsible for forward and backward priming, respectively. We tracked hand/mouse kinematics during lexical decision, and found that forward, backward, and symmetrical (e.g., cat DOG) priming exhibited different movement trajectories, with the effect of forward priming emerging earlier than that of backward priming and with symmetrical priming taking the lead around the time when the backward priming effect came online. The findings provide strong converging evidence for different mechanisms driving forward and backward priming, and demonstrate that continuous kinematic measures can shed light on cognitive processes as they unfold in real time.

Keywords

Semantic priming associative priming mouse tracking continuous kinematic measures

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abrams

R. A.

Balota

D. A.

(1991). Mental chronometry: Beyond reaction time. Psychological Science, 2, 153–157.

Bangert

A. S.

Abrams

R. A.

Balota

D. A.

(2012). Reaching for words and nonwords: Interactive effects of word frequency and stimulus quality on the characteristics of reaching movements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 513–520.

Barca

Pezzulo

(2012). Unfolding visual lexical decision in time. PLoS ONE, 7, e35932.

Bates

Maechler

Bolker

Walker

(2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.

Chwilla

D. J.

Hagoort

Brown

C. M.

(1998). The mechanism underlying backward priming in a lexical decision task: Spreading activation versus semantic matching. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 51, 531–560.

Collins

A. M.

Loftus

E. F.

(1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428.

Freeman

J. B.

Ambady

(2010). MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 226–241.

Kahan

T. A.

Neely

J. H.

Forsythe

W. J.

(1999). Dissociated backward priming effects in lexical decision and pronunciation tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 105–110.

Koriat

(1981). Semantic facilitation in lexical decision as a function of prime-target association. Memory & Cognition, 9, 587–598.

10.

Kuznetsova

Brockhoff

P. B.

Christensen

R. H. B.

(2015). lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. R Package version 2.0-29. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest

11.

McNamara

T. P.

(2005). Semantic priming: Perspectives from memory and word recognition. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

12.

Meyer

D. E.

Schvaneveldt

R. W.

(1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227–234.

13.

Neely

J. H.

(1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 226–254.

14.

Neely

J. H.

(1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In Besner

Humphreys

G. W.

(Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264–336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

15.

Neely

J. H.

Keefe

D. E.

(1989). Semantic context effects on visual word processing: A hybrid prospective-retrospective processing theory. In Bower

G. H.

(Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 24, pp. 207–248). New York, NY: Academic Press.

16.

Nelson

D. L.

McEvoy

C. L.

Schreiber

T. A.

(1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Retrieved from http://w3.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/

17.

Ratcliff

McKoon

(1988). A retrieval theory of priming in memory. Psychological Review, 95, 385–408.

18.

Spivey

M. J.

Grosjean

Knoblich

(2005). Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 10393–10398.

19.

Sternberg

(1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315.

20.

Thomas

M. A.

Neely

J. H.

O’Connor

(2012). When word identification gets tough, retrospective semantic processing comes to the rescue. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 623–643.

21.

Yap

M. J.

Balota

D. A.

Tse

C. S.

Besner

(2008). On the additive effects of stimulus quality and word frequency in lexical decision: Evidence for opposing interactive influences revealed by RT distributional analyses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 495–513.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB