Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-10
The influence of relatedness proportion on the joint relationship among word frequency,stimulus quality,and semantic priming in the lexical decision task
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.
AndrewsS.HerschJ. (2010). Lexical precision in skilled readers: Individual differences in masked neighbor priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 299–318. doi:10.1037/a0018366
2.
BalotaD. A.YapM. J. (2006). Attentional control and flexible lexical processing: Explorations of the magic moment of word recognition. In AndrewsS. (Ed.), From inkmarks to ideas: Current issues in lexical processing (pp. 229–258). New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
BalotaD. A.YapM. J.CorteseM. J.WatsonJ. 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
4.
BeckerC. 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
5.
BeckerC. A. (1980). Semantic context effects in visual word recognition: An analysis of semantic strategies. Memory & Cognition, 8, 493–
512. doi:0.3758/BF03213769
6.
BeckerC. A.KillionT. 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
7.
BorowskyR.BesnerD. (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
8.
BorowskyR.BesnerD. (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
9.
ColtheartM.RastleK.PerryC.LangdonR.ZieglerJ. (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.
FaustM. E.BalotaD. A.SpielerD. H.FerraroF. 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.
GraingerJ.JacobsA. 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.
HutchisonK. 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.
HutchisonK. A.BalotaD. A.CorteseM. J.WatsonJ. M. (2008). Predicting semantic priming at the item level. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1036–1066. doi:10.1080/17470210701438111
14.
KeuleersE.BrysbaertM. (2010). Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 627–633. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.3.627
15.
LuceR. D. (1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization (Vol. 8). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press on Demand.
16.
MassonM. E. J.KlieglR. (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.
McClellandJ. L. (1987). The case for interactionism in language processing. In ColtheartM. (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 3–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
McClellandJ. L.RumelhartD. 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.
MeyerD.SchvaneveldtR. W.RuddyM. G. (1975). Loci of contextual effect on visual word recognition. In DorničS.RabbittP (Eds.), Attention and performance V (pp. 99–118). New York, NY: Academic Press.
20.
NeelyJ. H.KeefeD. E.RossK. 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.
NeelyJ. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In BesnerD.HumphreysG. W. (Eds.), Basic processes in reading (pp. 264–336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22.
NeelyJ. 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.
NelsonD. L.McEvoyC. L.SchreiberT. 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.
NorrisD. (1986). Word recognition: Context effects without priming. Cognition, 22, 93–136. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(86)90001-6
25.
O’MalleyS.BesnerD. (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.
PerryC.ZieglerJ. C.ZorziM. (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.
PlautD. C.BoothJ. 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.
PlourdeC. E.BesnerD. (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.
ScaltrittiM.BalotaD. A.PeressottiF. (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
ShipleyW. C. (1940). A self-administering scale for measuring intellectual impairment and deterioration. Journal of Psychology, 9, 371–377.
32.
SternbergS. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–
315. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(69)90055-9
33.
StolzJ. A.BesnerD. (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.
StolzJ. A.NeelyJ. 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.
ThomasM. A.NeelyJ. H.O’ConnorP. (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.
YapM. J.BalotaD. 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.
YapM. J.BalotaD. A.TanS. 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.
YapM. J.TseC.-S.BalotaD. 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.
