Typically, using motion primes in a response priming task results in positive compatibility effects (PCEs) with short stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) and negative compatibility effects (NCEs) with long SOAs. This pattern of a PCE-NCE switch is also known from masked priming. When combining masked static primes with a subsequent flanker target, Boy et al. found a flanker effect, a PCE as well as no interaction with the flanker effect in the short SOA and a flanker effect, an NCE and an interaction with the flanker effect in the long SOA. In the present study, we combined a response priming task using motion primes with subsequent static flanker targets. We observed pronounced flanker effects (1) independently of the compatibility between prime and target (with the smallest flanker effects after directionally neutral motion primes) and (2) independently of the SOA. Furthermore, there was a PCE in the short and no compatibility effect in the longer SOA. That is, partially different processes seem to be involved in masked response priming and response priming with motion primes.
AnsorgeU.KundeW.KieferM. (2014). Unconscious vision and executive control: How unconscious processing and conscious action control interact. Consciousness and Cognition, 27, 268–287.
BermeitingerC.EckertD. (2022). Moving distractors and moving targets: Combining a response priming task with moving prime stimuli and a flanker task. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 34, 529–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2022.2029458
4.
BermeitingerC.HackländerR. P. (2018). Response priming with motion primes: Negative compatibility or congruency effects, even in free-choice trials. Cognitive Processing, 19, 351–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-018-0858-5
5.
BermeitingerC.HackländerR. P. M.KollekM.StiegemeyerM.TränknerA. E. (2020). Perceived and own motion in response priming. Open Psychology, 2(1), 213–237.
6.
BermeitingerC.KalbfleischL.SchäferK.LimA.GoymannH.ReuterL.JanssenS. M. J. (2020). Response priming with horizontally or vertically moving primes: A comparison of German, Malaysian, and Japanese subjects. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 16, 131–149.
7.
BermeitingerC.KappesC. (2018). Activation, inhibition, or something else: An exploratory study on response priming using moving dots as primes in middle-aged and old adults. Journal of Aging Research, 2018, Article 7432602. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7432602
8.
BermeitingerC.WenturaD. (2016). Moving single dots as primes for static arrow targets: Negative effects at very long SOAs. Experimental Psychology, 63, 127–139.
9.
BoyF.HusainM.SumnerP. (2010). Unconscious inhibition separates two forms of cognitive control. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 11134–11139.
10.
BoyF.SumnerP. (2010). Tight coupling between positive and reversed priming in the masked prime paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(4), 892–905. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017173
11.
BoyF.SumnerP. (2014). Visibility predicts priming within but not between people: A cautionary tale for studies of cognitive individual differences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 1011–1025. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034881
12.
BudnikU.BompasA.SumnerP. (2013). Perceptual strength is different from sensorimotor strength: Evidence from the centre-periphery asymmetry in masked priming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.741605
13.
Cardoso-LeiteP.GoreaA. (2010). On the perceptual/motor dissociation: A review of concepts, theory, experimental paradigms and data interpretations. Seeing and Perceiving, 23, 89–151.
14.
ChristS. E.McCraeC. S.AbramsR. A. (2002). Inhibition of return in static and dynamic displays. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 80–85.
15.
ColesM. G. H.GrattonG.BashoreT. R.EriksenC. W.DonchinE. (1985). A psychophysiological investigation of the continuous flow model of human information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 529–553.
16.
EckertD.BermeitingerC. (2025). Getting color: Response priming with motion primes and color targets without a priori response binding. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(8), 794–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2025.2553907
17.
EimerM.SchlagheckenF. (1998). Effects of masked stimuli on motor activation: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1737–1747.
18.
EriksenB. A.EriksenC. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.
19.
EriksenC. W.ColesM. G. H.MorrisL. R.O’HaraW. P. (1985). An electromyographic examination of response competition. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23, 165–168.
20.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
21.
GrattonG.ColesM. G. H.DonchinE. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 480–506.
22.
GrattonG.ColesM. G. H.SirevaagE. J.EriksenC. W.DonchinE. (1988). Pre- and poststimulus activation of response channels: A psychophysiological analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(3), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.14.3.331
23.
KlauerK. C.DittrichK. (2010). From sunshine to double arrows: An evaluation window account of negative compatibility effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 490–519.
24.
LavieN. (2005). Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 75–82.
25.
LingnauA.VorbergD. (2005). The time course of response inhibition in masked priming. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 545–557.
26.
NeumannO. (1990). Direct parameter specification and the concept of perception. Psychological Research, 52, 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00877529
27.
RaymondJ. E.O’DonnellH. L.TipperS. P. (1998). Priming reveals attentional modulation of human motion sensitivity. Vision Research, 38, 2863–2867.
28.
Rey-MermetA. (2020). Finding an interaction between Stroop congruency and flanker congruency requires a large congruency effect: A within-trial combination of conflict tasks. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(5), 2271–2301. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01914-1
29.
RidderinkhofK. R.van der MolenM. W.BandG. P. H.BashoreT. R. (1997). Sources of interference from irrelevant information: A developmental study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 65, 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1997.2367
30.
RidderinkhofK. R.WylieS. A.van den WildenbergW. P. M.BashoreT. R.van der MolenM. W. (2021). The arrow of time: Advancing insights into action control from the arrow version of the Eriksen flanker task. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 83, 700–721. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02167-z
31.
SchlagheckenF.EimerM. (2006). Active masks and active inhibition: A comment on Lleras and Enns (2004) and on Verleger, Jaśkowski, Aydemir, van der Lubbe, and Groen (2004). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 484–494.
32.
SchmidtF.HaberkampA.SchmidtT. (2011). Dos and don’ts in response priming research. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 7, 120–131.
33.
SchmidtT.NiehausS.NagelA. (2006). Primes and targets in rapid chases: Tracing sequential waves of motor activation. Behavioral Neuroscience, 120, 1005–1006.
34.
SchmidtT.PanisS.WolkersdorferM. P.VorbergD. (2022). Response inhibition in the negative compatibility effect in the absence of inhibitory stimulus features. Open Psychology, 4, 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1515/psych-2022-0012
35.
SimonJ. R.RudellA. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 433–435.
36.
TukeyJ. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Addison-Wesley.
