Latency of associative activation in memory.

Fischler, Ira; Goodman, George O.

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.4.3.455

Cited by 160 publications

(130 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

120

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, studies with exposure duration between 33ms and 40ms and levels of conscious prime recognition up to 6%, have reported positive priming (e.g. Dagenbach et al, 1989, Experiment 4;Durante & Hirshman, 1994, Experiment 1;Fischler & Goodman, 1978;Hirshman & Durante, 1992) with some Categorical priming, masked famous faces 8 exception (Durante & Hirshman, 1994, Experiment 2). For the present study, given the planned exposure of 17ms and the expectation that the level of conscious prime recognition would be zero or very near-zero, negative priming was predicted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…In fact, there is ample evidence that priming can be obtained with prime-to-target SOA between 30 and 40ms, when words or pictures of objects are used as primes and words are used as targets (e.g. Evett & Humphreys, 1981;Fischler & Goodman, 1978;Greenwald et al, 1996;Perea & Gotor, 1997;Sereno & Rayner, 1992). [With very short SOA the prime exposure duration is also very short.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The categorical structure of knowledge for famous people (and a novel application of Centre-Surround theory)☆

Stone

Valentine

2007

Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The categorical structure of knowledge for famous people (and a novel application of Centre-Surround theory)☆

Stone

Valentine

2007

Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…There is one set of findings that runs counter to the conclusion that an experimenter-provided prime must be processed to a deep level if semantic priming is to occur. Several studies have shown that semantic priming can occur under conditions in which subjects cannot even detect the presence of the prime (Balota, 1983;Fowler, Wolford, Slade, & Tassinary, 1981;Marcel, 1980;Marcel & Patterson, 1978; but see also Merikle, 1982) or cannot identify the prime (Carr, McCauley, Sperber, & Parmelee, 1982;Fischler & Goodman, 1978;McCauley, Parmelee, Sperber, & C.ar~, 1980). Apparently, then, the depth-of-processing effect on pnmmg occurs only for consciously encoded primes and not for primes presented outside conscious awareness.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inhibition from semantically related primes: Evidence of a category-specific inhibition

1983

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The phenomenon of inhibition from generating successive items within a category, reported by A. S. Brown (1981), was examined in two experiments. Subjects responded on target trials by either generating targets (e.g., generating BASS to B when it followed the category name FISH, Experiment 1) or reading them (reading BASS when it followed the category name FISH, Experiment 2). Prior to target trials, all subjects received priming trials consisting of either one or four exemplars from a single semantic category, which could be either the same category as the target's category (related priming condition) or an unrelated category (unrelated priming condition). In both experiments, different groups of subjects either read or generated primes. When primes were read, target response times (RTs) were always facilitated in the related priming condition compared with in the unrelated priming condition. However, when primes were generated, this facilitation from related primes was eliminated, except in the one-prime condition, when targets were also generated. When primes and targets were both generated, RTs in the related priming condition were slower following four primes than following one prime. Thus, category-specific inhibition from multiple related primes is greatest when both primes and targets must be actively retrieved.Recent presentation of material semantically related to target information typically facilitates the processing or retrieval of that target information. For example, in a lexical (word-nonword) decision task, subjects are faster to respond that the letter string "nurse" is a word when it has been primed by a semantically related word such as "doctor" rather than by an unrelated word such as "butter" (

show abstract

“…In Experiment 2, the syntactically and semantically primed trials were either blocked separately or mixed within the same block. Significant syntactic and semantic effects were both observed in the blocked condition, but only the semantic effect was obtained in the mixed condition.It is a well established fact that context facilitates word recognition (e.g., Tulving & Gold, 1963), and there is a considerable body of work suggesting that some of these effects are due to semantic priming (Fischler & Goodman, 1978;Meyer, Schvaneveldt, & Ruddy, 1975). However, there has been little work specifically designed to examine the effects of syntactic context.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is a well established fact that context facilitates word recognition (e.g., Tulving & Gold, 1963), and there is a considerable body of work suggesting that some of these effects are due to semantic priming (Fischler & Goodman, 1978;Meyer, Schvaneveldt, & Ruddy, 1975). However, there has been little work specifically designed to examine the effects of syntactic context.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of syntactic context in word recognition

1981

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the role of syntactic information in word recognition. Subjects made a word-nonword decision regarding a target string that was preceded by a syntactically appropriate word, a semantically related word, or an unrelated word. In Experiment 1, with syntactic and semantic trials assigned to separate blocks, syntactically and semantically appropriate context significantly reduced lexical decision for subsequent target words, compared with unrelated contexts. In Experiment 2, the syntactically and semantically primed trials were either blocked separately or mixed within the same block. Significant syntactic and semantic effects were both observed in the blocked condition, but only the semantic effect was obtained in the mixed condition.It is a well established fact that context facilitates word recognition (e.g., Tulving & Gold, 1963), and there is a considerable body of work suggesting that some of these effects are due to semantic priming (Fischler & Goodman, 1978;Meyer, Schvaneveldt, & Ruddy, 1975). However, there has been little work specifically designed to examine the effects of syntactic context. One relevant experiment was reported by Miller and Isard (1963), in which they showed that both semantic and syntactic information can improve the processing of sentences. In their first experiment, Miller and Isard's subjects listened to stimulus sentences and were told to repeat the sentences to the experimenter. The stimulus sentences were of three types: meaningful, grammatical sentences (e.g., "The academic lecture attracted a limited audience"), grammatically correct sentences that were semantically anomalous (e.g., "The odorless lecture became a filthy audience"), and ungrammatical sentences (e.g., "From hunters house motorists the carry"). Subjects were most accurate with the meaningful, grammatical sentences, but they were more accurate on the grammatical-anomalous sentences than on the ungrammatical sentences. Thus, appropriate syntactic context resulted in better performance even in the absence of meaningful semnatic information.Given Miller and Isard's (1969) findings, questions remain regarding the nature of the effect of semantic and syntactic information on linguistic processing. First, do semantic and syntactic information affect word recognition or some other aspect of processing required by the task? In the Miller and Isard experiment, conThis research was supported by NSF Grant BNS76-14830 to James L. McClelland. Thanks are due to Marguerite Moreno for her assistance in data collection and analysis and Jim Hollan for his helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Requests for reprints should be sent to James L. McClelland, Department of Psychology, C-009, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093. textual information could have had the effect of improving subjects' performance by providing a structure to facilitate memory retention and/or retrieval, with linguistic structure having no effect on the recognition of the words.Some results relevant t...

show abstract

Latency of associative activation in memory.

Cited by 160 publications

References 27 publications

The categorical structure of knowledge for famous people (and a novel application of Centre-Surround theory)☆

The categorical structure of knowledge for famous people (and a novel application of Centre-Surround theory)☆

Inhibition from semantically related primes: Evidence of a category-specific inhibition

The role of syntactic context in word recognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About