The effect of target context and cue type in a postcue word pronunciation task
Selected contents from this journal
Languages of publication
Dallas and Merikle (1976a, 1976 b) demonstrated that when participants were presented with a pair of words for over 1 s and subsequently cued to pronounce one of the words aloud (postcue task) semantic priming effects occurred. Humphreys, Lloyd-Jones, and Fias (1995) failed to replicate this postcue semantic priming effect using word pairs that were semantic category co-ordinates. The aim of Experiment 1 was to determine if the disparate postcue task results reported by these researchers could be accounted for by the prime-target contexts or cue types engaging different attentional processes or a combination of these factors. A postcue pronunciation task was used and word pairs presented were taken from an associate-semantic context and a semantic category context. In the Dallas and Merikle condition the line cue flanked the location in which the target word was previously shown. In the Humphreys et al. condition the cue wordUPPERorlowerwas centrally presented and indicated the location in which the target word previously appeared. Results demonstrated that the occurrence of semantic and associate-semantic priming effects under postcue task conditions varied for the two cue types. Experiment 2 investigated if these results were attributable to a between subject manipulation of cue type. Using a fully repeated measures design priming effects were evident for top located targets in both the associate-semantic and semantic prime-target contexts. Experiment 3 used a between subjects design to rule out the possibility that carry over effects between cue and context conditions contributed to the postcue task priming effects. Priming was evident for top located targets in an associate-semantic and semantic context for the line cue. For the word cue there was priming for top located targets from an associate-semantic context and a reverse priming effect for top located targets from the semantic context. Possible explanations for the occurrence of priming effects under postcue task conditions are discussed.
- Allport, D. A. (1977). On knowing the meaning of words we are unable to report: The effects of visual masking. In S. Dornic (Ed.),Attention and Performance VI(pp. 505-533). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
- Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & VanRijn, H. (1993).CELEX lexical database. Linguistic data consortium. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
- Balota, D. A., Boland, J. E., & Shields, L. W. (1989). Priming in pronunciation: Beyond pattern recognition and onset latency.Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 14-36.
- Balota, D. A., & Chumbley, J. I. (1985). The locus of word-frequency effects in the pronunciation task: Lexical access and/or production?Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 89-106.
- Besner, D., & Smith, M. C. (1992). Models of word recognition: When obscuring the stimulus yields a clearer view.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 468-482.
- Chiarello, C., Maxfield, L., Richards, L., & Kahan, T. (1995). Activation of lexical codes for simultaneously presented words: Modulation by attention and pathway strength.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 776-808.
- Computing and Information Systems Department (CISD). (1996). Edinburgh Associative Thesaurus. Rutherford Appleton Laboratory: UK. Retrieved fromhttp://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/comp.speech/Section1/Lexical/eat.html
- Dallas, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1976a). Response processes and semantic-context effects.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 8, 441-444.
- Dallas, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1976b). Semantic processing of non-attended visual information.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 30, 15-21.
- Fenske, M., & Stolz, J. (2001). Disengaging attention: On the locus of the cue-duration effect in partial report.Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1335-1346.
- Fischler, I. (1977). Semantic priming without association in a lexical decision task.Memory and Cognition, 5, 335-339.
- Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35, 116-124.
- Hauer, B. J. A. R., & MacLeod, C. M. (2006). Endogenous versus exogenous attentional cuing effects on memory.Acta Psychologica, 122, 305-320.
- Henderson, J. (1991). Stimulus discrimination following covert attentional orienting to an exogenous cue.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 91-106.
- Henderson, J. M., & Macquistan, A. D. (1993). The spatial distribution of attention following an exogenous cue.Perception and Psychophysics, 53, 221-230.
- Humphreys, G. W., Lloyd-Jones, T. J., & Fias, W. (1995). Semantic interference effects on naming using a postcue procedure: Tapping the links between semantics and phonology with pictures and words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 961-980.
- Lucas, M. (2000). Semantic priming without association: A meta-analytic review.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 618-630.
- Lupker, S. J. (1984). Semantic priming without association: A second look.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 709-733.
- McCann, R. S., Folk, C. L., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). The role of spatial attention in visual word processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1015-1029.
- McNamara, T. P. (2005).Semantic priming: Perspectives from memory and word recognition. New York: Psychology Press.
- McRae, K., & Boisvert, S. (1998). Automatic semantic similarity priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 558-572.
- McRae, K., de Sa, V. R., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 99-130.
- Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation of recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227-234.
- Moss, H. E., Ostrin, R. K., Tyler, L. K., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1995). Accessing different types of lexical semantic information: Evidence from priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2, 863-883.
- Murphy, K. (2000).The FIFO principle: Factors controlling retrieval speed in post-cued partial report tasks. Unpublished PhDthesis. Macquarie University, Australia.
- Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.),Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition(pp. 264-336). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
- Plaut, D. C. (1995). Semantic and associative priming in a distributed attractor network. InProceedings of the 17th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society(pp. 37-42). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
- Shelton, J. R., & Martin, R. C. (1992). How semantic is automatic semantic priming?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1191-1210.
- Sieroff, E., & Posner, M. I. (1988). Cueing spatial attention during processing of words and letter strings in normals.Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5, 451-472.
- Stolz, J., & McCann, R. (2000). Visual word recognition: Reattending to the role of spatial attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1320-1331.
- Stolz, J., & Stevanovski, B. (2004). Interactive activation in visual word recognition: Constraints imposed by the joint effects of spatial attention and semantics.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 1064-1076.
Publication order reference