Making things difficult in lexical decision: The impact of pseudohomophones and transposed-letter nonwords on frequency and semantic priming effects.

2010 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 1267-1289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Lupker ◽  
Penny M. Pexman
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Semantic Priming ◽  
Priming Effects ◽  
The Impact

The impact of consonant–vowel transpositions on masked priming effects in Italian and English

2019 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-198
Author(s):  
Lucia Colombo ◽  
Giacomo Spinelli ◽  
Stephen J Lupker
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Masked Priming ◽  
Previous Literature ◽  
Priming Effects ◽  
Priming Paradigm ◽  
Orthographic Coding ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Orthographic Code

There are now a number of reports in the literature that transposed letter (TL) priming effects emerge when two consonants are transposed (e.g., caniso-CASINO) but not when two vowels are transposed (e.g., cinaso-CASINO). In the present article, four masked priming lexical decision experiments, two in Italian and two in English, are reported in which TL priming effects involving the transposition of two adjacent consonants (e.g., atnenna-ANTENNA) were contrasted with those involving the transposition of a vowel and an adjacent consonant (e.g., anetnna-ANTENNA), a contrast not directly examined in the previous literature. In none of the experiments was there any indication that the priming effects were different sizes for the two types of transpositions, including Experiment 4 in which a sandwich priming paradigm was used. These results support the assumption of most orthographic coding models that the consonant–vowel status of the letters is not relevant to the nature of the orthographic code. The question of how to reconcile these results with other TL manipulations investigating vowel versus consonant transpositions is discussed.

scholarly journals The Mechanism Underlying Backward Priming in a Lexical Decision Task: Spreading Activation versus Semantic Matching

1998 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 531-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorothee J. Chwilla ◽  
Peter Hagoort ◽  
C.M. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Lexical Decision Task ◽  
Semantic Priming ◽  
Priming Effect ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Spreading Activation ◽  
Semantic Matching ◽  
Priming Effects ◽  
Manipulation Experiment

Koriat (1981) demonstrated that an association from the target to a preceding prime, in the absence of an association from the prime to the target, facilitates lexical decision and referred to this effect as “backward priming”. Backward priming is of relevance, because it can provide information about the mechanism underlying semantic priming effects. Following Neely (1991), we distinguish three mechanisms of priming: spreading activation, expectancy, and semantic matching/ integration. The goal was to determine which of these mechanisms causes backward priming, by assessing effects of backward priming on a language-relevant ERP component, the N400, and reaction time (RT). Based on previous work, we propose that the N400 priming effect reflects expectancy and semantic matching/ integration, but in contrast with RT does not reflect spreading activation. Experiment 1 shows a backward priming effect that is qualitatively similar for the N400 and RT in a lexical decision task. This effect was not modulated by an ISI manipulation. Experiment 2 clarifies that the N400 backward priming effect reflects genuine changes in N400 amplitude and cannot be ascribed to other factors. We will argue that these backward priming effects cannot be due to expectancy but are best accounted for in terms of semantic matching/integration.

scholarly journals The impact of focus particles on the recognition and rejection of contrastive alternatives

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
NICOLE GOTZNER ◽  
ISABELL WARTENBURGER ◽  
KATHARINA SPALEK
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Recognition Task ◽  
Interference Effects ◽  
Priming Effects ◽  
Focus Particles ◽  
Active Search ◽  
Prior Context ◽  
Unrelated Condition ◽  
Probe Recognition ◽  
The Impact

abstractThe semantics of focus particles like only requires a set of alternatives (Rooth, 1992). In two experiments, we investigated the impact of such particles on the retrieval of alternatives that are mentioned in the prior context or unmentioned. The first experiment used a probe recognition task and showed that focus particles interfere with the recognition of mentioned alternatives and the rejection of unmentioned alternatives relative to a condition without a particle. A second lexical decision experiment demonstrated priming effects for mentioned and unmentioned alternatives (compared with an unrelated condition) while focus particles caused additional interference effects. Overall, our results indicate that focus particles trigger an active search for alternatives and lead to a competition between mentioned alternatives, unmentioned alternatives, and the focused element.

Semantic priming effects from single words in a lexical decision task

2007 ◽  
Vol 125 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen Noguera ◽  
Juan J. Ortells ◽  
María J.F. Abad ◽  
Encarnación Carmona ◽  
M. Teresa Daza
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Lexical Decision Task ◽  
Semantic Priming ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Priming Effects

Target accessibility contributes to asymmetric priming in translation and cross-language semantic priming in unbalanced bilinguals

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
YISRAEL SMITH ◽  
JOEL WALTERS ◽  
ANAT PRIOR
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Lexical Decision Task ◽  
Semantic Priming ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Priming Effects ◽  
Lexical Activation ◽  
Frequency Of Use ◽  
Translation Priming ◽  
Cross Language ◽  
L1 And L2

The current study examined within- and cross-language connectivity in four priming conditions: repetition, translation, within-language semantic and cross-language semantic priming. Unbalanced Hebrew–English bilinguals (N = 89) completed a lexical decision task in one of the four conditions in both languages. Priming effects were significantly larger from L1 to L2 for translation priming and marginally so for cross-language semantic priming. Priming effects were comparable for L1 and L2 in repetition and within-language semantic priming. These results support the notion that L1 words are more effective primes but also that L2 targets benefit more from priming. This pattern of results suggests that the lower frequency of use of L2 lexical items in unbalanced bilinguals contributes to asymmetrical cross-language priming via lower resting-level activation of targets and not only via less efficient lexical activation of primes, as highlighted by the BIA+ model.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document