Inhibition in phonological priming: Lexical or strategic effects?

Abstract

Facilitatory (speeded) and inhibitory (slowed) response times are found in phonological priming experiments, in which the amount of word-initial phoneme overlap between a prime and target is varied (e.g., mark–must). While facilitation appears to be strategic, there is debate as to the nature of the inhibitory priming found when high-overlap prime-target pairs are used (e.g., musk–must). Some researchers propose that this inhibitory priming is due to lexical competition between simultaneously activated candidates; others suggest it is due to the use of a response strategy. Experiments in our laboratory attempted to resolve this debate. We tested for the presence of strategic effects by manipulating variables thought to influence strategy acquisition (i.e., isi, proportion of overlap trials), and then by examining participants’ RTs to trials of varying overlap (e.g., prone–must, mark–must, muff–must, musk–must) collected over the course of the experiment. Results suggest that inhibition in the phonological priming paradigm is determined in large part by the development of a response strategy.

When fair is foul and foul is fair: Reverse priming in automatic evaluation.

“…There is also reason to believe that phonemic similarities between primes and targets could affect latency to pronounce. The idea has intuitive appeal but is also supported by research on auditory perception (Shoaf & Pitt, 1998). Specifically, Shoaf and Pitt have shown that latencies to pronounce words are faster when they are preceded by word primes that have similar sounds in the first or second syllables, but longer when the third syllables are similar.…”