The influence of relatedness proportion on the joint relationship among word frequency,stimulus quality,and semantic priming in the lexical decision task

Abstract

In the lexical decision task, the additive effects of stimulus quality and word frequency have been used to infer the presence of independent processing stages in visual word recognition. Importantly, this pattern can be moderated by semantic priming, suggesting the presence of a retrospective prime retrieval mechanism that is selectively engaged based on task context (i.e., utility of the primes). We examine the sensitivity of this mechanism in two lexical decision experiments that manipulate stimulus quality, word frequency, and semantic priming. Critically, we studied these joint effects when the proportion of related primes was set at .50 or .25. Results indicated that with a .50 relatedness proportion, a three-way interaction was obtained such that additivity between frequency and stimulus quality was found following related semantic primes, but an overadditive pattern was exhibited following unrelated primes. When the relatedness proportion was reduced to .25, this interaction was eliminated. Furthermore, relatedness proportion affected the magnitude of the stimulus quality by priming interaction but not the frequency by priming interaction. These results are interpreted within the context of a flexible lexical processer that adaptively engages processes in response to task context.

Keywords

Semantic priming word frequency stimulus quality lexical decision

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andrews

Hersch

(2010). Lexical precision in skilled readers: Individual differences in masked neighbor priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 299–318. doi:10.1037/a0018366

Balota

D. A.

Yap

M. J.

(2006). Attentional control and flexible lexical processing: Explorations of the magic moment of word recognition. In Andrews

(Ed.), From inkmarks to ideas: Current issues in lexical processing (pp. 229–258). New York, NY: Routledge.

Balota

D. A.

Yap

M. J.

Cortese

M. J.

Watson

J. M.

(2008). Beyond mean response latency: Response time distributional analyses of semantic priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 495–523. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.10.004

Becker

C. A.

(1979). Semantic context and word frequency effects in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 252– 259. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.5.2.252

Becker

C. A.

(1980). Semantic context effects in visual word recognition: An analysis of semantic strategies. Memory & Cognition, 8, 493– 512. doi:0.3758/BF03213769

Becker

C. A.

Killion

T. H.

(1977). Interaction of visual and cognitive effects in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 389–401. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.3.3.389

Borowsky

Besner

(1993). Visual word recognition: A multistage activation model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 813–840. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.19.4.813

Borowsky

Besner

(2006). Parallel distributed processing and lexical-semantic effects in visual word recognition: Are a few stages necessary? Psychological Review, 113, 181– 193. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.113.1.181

Coltheart

Rastle

Perry

Langdon

Ziegler

(2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204– 256. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.108.1.204

10.

Faust

M. E.

Balota

D. A.

Spieler

D. H.

Ferraro

F. R.

(1999). Individual differences in information-processing rate and amount: Implications for group differences in response latency. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 777–799. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.777

11.

Grainger

Jacobs

A. M.

(1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review, 103, 518– 565. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.518

12.

Hutchison

K. A.

(2007). Attentional control and the relatedness proportion effect in semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 645–662. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.645

13.

Hutchison

K. A.

Balota

D. A.

Cortese

M. J.

Watson

J. M.

(2008). Predicting semantic priming at the item level. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1036–1066. doi:10.1080/17470210701438111

14.

Keuleers

Brysbaert

(2010). Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 627–633. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.3.627

15.

Luce

R. D.

(1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization (Vol. 8). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press on Demand.

16.

Masson

M. E. J.

Kliegl

(2013). Modulation of additive and interactive effects in lexical decision by trial history. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 898–914. doi:10.1037/a0029180

17.

McClelland

J. L.

(1987). The case for interactionism in language processing. In Coltheart

(Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 3–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

18.

McClelland

J. L.

Rumelhart

D. E.

(1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.5.375

19.

Meyer

Schvaneveldt

R. W.

Ruddy

M. G.

(1975). Loci of contextual effect on visual word recognition. In Dornič

Rabbitt

(Eds.), Attention and performance V (pp. 99–118). New York, NY: Academic Press.

20.

Neely

J. H.

Keefe

D. E.

Ross

K. L.

(1989). Semantic priming in the lexical decision task: Roles of prospective prime-generated expectancies and retrospective semantic matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 1003– 1019. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.15.6.1003

21.

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 (pp. 264–336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

22.

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. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.106.3.226

23.

Nelson

D. L.

McEvoy

C. L.

Schreiber

T. A.

(2004). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 402–407. doi:10.3758/BF03195588

24.

Norris

(1986). Word recognition: Context effects without priming. Cognition, 22, 93–136. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(86)90001-6

25.

O’Malley

Besner

(2008). Reading aloud: Qualitative differences in the relation between stimulus quality and word frequency as a function of context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1400– 1411. doi:10.1037/a0013084

26.

Perry

Ziegler

J. C.

Zorzi

(2007). Nested incremental modeling in the development of computational theories: The CDP+ model of reading aloud. Psychological Review, 114, 273–315. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.273

27.

Plaut

D. C.

Booth

J. R.

(2000). Individual and developmental differences in semantic priming: Empirical and computational support for a single-mechanism account of lexical processing. Psychological Review, 107, 786– 823. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.107.4.786

28.

Plourde

C. E.

Besner

(1997). On the locus of the word frequency effect in visual word recognition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 51, 181– 194. doi:10.1037/1196-1961.51.3.181

29.

Scaltritti

Balota

D. A.

Peressotti

(2013). Exploring the additive effects of stimulus quality and word frequency: The influence of local and list-wide prime relatedness. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 91–107. doi:10.1080/17470218.2012.698628

30.

Schneider

Eschman

Zuccolotto

(2012). E-Prime 2.0 reference guide manual. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.

31.

Shipley

W. C.

(1940). A self-administering scale for measuring intellectual impairment and deterioration. Journal of Psychology, 9, 371–377.

32.

Sternberg

(1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276– 315. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(69)90055-9

33.

Stolz

J. A.

Besner

(1998). Levels of representation in visual word recognition: A dissociation between morphological and semantic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1642– 1655. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.6.1642

34.

Stolz

J. A.

Neely

J. H.

(1995). When target degradation does and does not enhance semantic context effects in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 596– 611. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.3.596

35.

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. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.02.002

36.

Yap

M. J.

Balota

D. A.

(2007). Additive and interactive effects on response time distributions in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 274– 296. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.274

37.

Yap

M. J.

Balota

D. A.

Tan

S. E.

(2013). Additive and interactive effects in semantic priming: Isolating lexical and decision processes in the lexical decision task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 140– 158. doi:10.1037/a0028520

38.

Yap

M. J.

Tse

C.-S.

Balota

D. A.

(2009). Individual differences in the joint effects of semantic priming and word frequency revealed by RT distributional analyses: The role of lexical integrity. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 303– 325. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.07.001

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

0.10 MB