Influence of prime–probe stimulus onset asynchrony and prime precuing manipulations on semantic priming effects with words in a lexical-decision task.

Ortells, Juan J.; Abad, María J. F.; Noguera, Carmen; Lupiáñez, Juan

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.1.75

Cited by 39 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This "null" semantic NP effect for words is not uncommon. Although most published studies on semantic NP have observed this effect in at least one condition, every one of these studies has found either null effects or semantic PP in other, highly similar, conditions (Fox, 1996;Fuentes & Tudela, 1992;Marí-Beffa, Fuentes, Catena, & Houghton, 2000;Ortells et al, 2001;Ortells & Tudela, 1996;Richards, 1999;Yee, 1991).…”

Section: Semantic Negative Primingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Richards found null semantic NP in a pronunciation task but significant NP effects in a semantic categorization task, reasoning that NP effects are larger in tasks that rely more heavily on semantic-level information. However, because several studies have also obtained semantic NP with an LDT (Fox, 1996;Fuentes & Tudela, 1992;Marí-Beffa et al, 2000;Ortells et al, 2001;Ortells & Tudela, 1996;Yee, 1991), perhaps instead it is the forced-choice probe decision in these tasks that is critical for obtaining semantic NP. Unfortunately, these two possibilities remain unclear as well because Tipper and Driver (1988) and Chiappe and MacLeod (1995) both failed to find semantic NP for word stimuli, despite their use of a categorization task similar to the one used by Richards.…”

Section: Semantic Negative Primingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, these factors cannot account for differences in semantic NP across other studies, because these other studies have all presented the distractor (and the target) in the participant's dominant language and have all instructed people to ignore the distractors. Yee (1991) and Ortells et al (2001) both emphasized the importance of the SOA between the prime and probe displays, finding significant semantic NP at an SOA of 600 msec, but instead finding semantic PP at slightly longer or shorter SOAs. To explain her pattern of results, Yee argued that ignored information initially goes through a period of facilitation followed by a period of suppression.…”

Section: Semantic Negative Primingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The effect of asymmetrical association on positive and negative semantic priming

Hutchison

2002

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Semantic Negative Primingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Semantic Negative Primingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Semantic Negative Primingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of asymmetrical association on positive and negative semantic priming

Hutchison

2002

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Cuing paradigms that fulfill these conditions have been used in the investigation of word priming (e.g., Ortells, Abad, Noguera, & Lupiañez, 2001). We adapted one such paradigm.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parafoveal Semantic Processing of Emotional Visual Scenes.

Calvo¹,

Lang²

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors investigated whether emotional pictorial stimuli are especially likely to be processed in parafoveal vision. Pairs of emotional and neutral visual scenes were presented parafoveally (2.1°or 2.5°o f visual angle from a central fixation point) for 150 -3,000 ms, followed by an immediate recognition test (500-ms delay). Results indicated that (a) the first fixation was more likely to be placed onto the emotional than the neutral scene; (b) recognition sensitivity (AЈ) was generally higher for the emotional than for the neutral scene when the scenes were paired, but there were no differences when presented individually; and (c) the superior sensitivity for emotional scenes survived changes in size, color, and spatial orientation, but not in meaning. The data suggest that semantic analysis of emotional scenes can begin in parafoveal vision in advance of foveal fixation.Keywords: parafoveal, perception, emotional, scenes, pictorial stimuli Parafoveal Semantic Processing of EmotionalVisual ScenesThe present study addresses the issues of whether emotional visual scenes are especially likely to be perceived outside the spatial focus of attention, in comparison with nonemotional scenes, and the kind of content that is processed when these pictorial stimuli are presented in parafoveal vision. Because of the optical properties of the neural structure of the retina of the eyes, the quality of visual information falls off rapidly and continuously from the center of the fixation placement. The spatial field of vision can be divided into three regions: foveal, parafoveal, and peripheral. Acuity is maximal in the fovea (the central 2°of vision), it decreases in the parafovea (which extends out to 5°on each side of foveal fixation), and it is even poorer in the periphery (beyond the parafoveal boundaries). Foveal vision corresponds to the spatial focus of overt attention. Parafoveal and peripheral vision involve perception outside the focus of attention. There is a controversy regarding what type of information can be obtained from parafoveal and peripheral vision of scenes (for reviews, see Rayner, 1998). Parafoveal and Peripheral Processing of Pictorial StimuliRayner and Pollatsek (1992) argued that meaningful information can be extracted further from fixation in scenes than in text, thus suggesting a larger perceptual span for pictorial than for verbal stimuli. Henderson, Weeks, and Hollingworth (1999) have put forward a model of eye movement control in scene viewing that specifies the role of semantic processing for stimuli located out of foveal fixation. This model is meant to account for fixation placement and fixation duration. Initially, eye movements and fixation placement are determined by low-level visual features of stimuli such as luminance, contrast, color, and so forth. Once the eyes land on a region, the amount of time they remain at that place is determined by the successful completion of processing, which involves both perceptual and cognitive analysis. Semantic factors such as informativeness, consi...

show abstract

“…Our experimental task is similar to those used in the emotion and cognitive literatures, in particular the affective negative priming (e.g., Joorman & Gotlieb, 2010) and semantic priming from attended and unattended parafoveal words (e.g., Ortells et al 2001). The task, which is supposed to involve processes associated to selective attention, is illustrated in Figure 1 and consisted of two consecutive trials: In the prime trial two diagrams representing human faces with different emotions are introduced.…”

Section: Overview Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective attention to emotional stimuli: What IQ and openness do, and emotional intelligence does not

Fiori

Antonakis

2012

Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined how general intelligence, personality, and emotional intelligence-measured as an ability using the MSCEIT-predicted performance on a selective-attention task requiring participants to ignore distracting emotion information. We used a visual prime in which participants saw a pair of faces depicting emotions; their task was to focus on one of the faces (the target) while ignoring the other (the distractor). Next, participants categorized a string of letters (word or nonword), which was either congruent to the target or the distractor. The speed of response to categorizing the string was recorded. Given the emotional nature of the stimuli and the emotional information processing involved in the task, we were surprised to see that none of the MSCEIT branches predicted performance. However, general intelligence and openness to experience reduced response time.Keywords: selective attention, emotional intelligence, intelligence, personality, MSCEIT, emotion processes, lexical decision task, inhibition. 3 Research Highlights• We modeled emotional intelligence, personality, and general intelligence as predictors of performance in an emotional task requiring selective attention• We used an errors-in-variables specification to correct for measurement error in the predictors • Scores on the ability EI test (MSCEIT) did not show any association with performance in the selective attention task, casting doubt on the construct validity of the MSCEIT• General intelligence and Openness to Experience speeded up correct answers.4

show abstract

Influence of prime–probe stimulus onset asynchrony and prime precuing manipulations on semantic priming effects with words in a lexical-decision task.

Cited by 39 publications

References 55 publications

The effect of asymmetrical association on positive and negative semantic priming

The effect of asymmetrical association on positive and negative semantic priming

Parafoveal Semantic Processing of Emotional Visual Scenes.

Selective attention to emotional stimuli: What IQ and openness do, and emotional intelligence does not

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About