Long-term semantic priming: A computational account and empirical evidence.

Abstract

Semantic priming is traditionally viewed as an effect that rapidly decays. A new view of long-term word priming in attractor neural networks is proposed. The model predicts long-term semantic priming under certain conditions. That is, the task must engage semantic-level processing to a sufficient degree. The predictions were confirmed in computer simulations and in 3 experiments. Experiment 1 showed that when target words are each preceded by multiple semantically related primes, there is long-lag priming on a semanticdecision task but not on a lexical-decision task. Experiment 2 replicated the long-term semantic priming effect for semantic decisions with only one prime per target. Experiment 3 demonstrated semantic priming with much longer word lists at lags of 0, 4, and 8 items. These are the first experiments to demonstrate a semantic priming effect spanning many intervening items and lasting much longer than a few seconds.Many forms of priming have been studied (for reviews, see Monsell, 1985;Richardson-Klavehn & Bjork, 1988;Schacter, 1987). Whereas in repetition priming the priming stimulus is identical to the target, in similarity-based priming tests (e.g., form priming, morphological priming, and semantic priming), the prime and target are different words sharing some surface features, semantic features, or both. Repetition priming and form priming have been found to produce long-lasting effects ranging from hours to weeks or even months (e.g., Bentin & Feldman, 1990; Bentin & Moscovitch, 1988;Jacoby & Dallas, 1981;Rueckl, 1990;Sloman, Hayman, Ohta, Law, & Tulving, 1988). Semantic priming, however, is traditionally thought to produce only short-term effects that dissipate after several seconds or after more than one item intervenes between prime and target stimuli. Is it possible that completely different priming mechanisms are operating at semantic levels of processing as compared with other levels at which priming could occur? The most parsimonious account would be that the same mechanisms operate at all levels of the system. In this article, we are concerned particularly with long-term priming and argue in favor of a single mechanism to account for all types of long-term priming. Our view is that short-term semantic priming involves a process completely different from that underlying long-term priming, but either type of process should behave according to the same computational principles at any level of the system, whether it be perceptual or semantic. Although our account of long-term priming is very general, our focus is specifically on semantic priming because our model makes novel predictions in this domain. We first present a theoretical account of long-term priming based on a distributed cormectionist model of word recognition, combined with some very general learning-processing assumptions. The theory specifies conditions under which long-term priming should occur and predicts that semantic priming should produce long-term effects under the appropriate conditions (even though it has not been fo...

Availability of related long-term memory during and after attention focus in working memory

“…We make this claim for several reasons. First, consistent with Becker et al (1997), we reject the idea that simple spreading activation can account for the persistent priming observed in the processing of new exemplars. Persistent priming of lexical or semantic memory representations seems possible only for information directly processed in the priming events.…”

“…Although semantic priming effects have traditionally been thought to last only a few seconds at most, there is recent evidence that such priming can be more persistent (Becker, Moscovitch, Behrmann, & Joordens, 1997;Hughes & Whittlesea, 2003;. The demonstrations of persistent semantic priming have depended on more complex priming operations and, sometimes, multiple priming events.…”

“…Thus, the priming effects observed in the focused and ignored categories occurred after several unrelated, intervening comparison trials between memory load processing and the target comparison trials. Becker et al (1997) noted that a temporary spreading activation explanation cannot account easily for such long-lasting semantic priming without some additional assumptions. They proposed and found empirical support for a neural network model of semantic priming that included a persistent form of memory strengthening.…”

Dynamics of the semantic priming shift: behavioral experiments and cortical network model

“…This choice was not imposed by the mean field approach itself. Contrary to localist models were items are coded by single nodes (Anderson 1976(Anderson , 1983aCollins and Loftus 1975;Collins and Quillian 1969), the mean field approach is compatible with neurons coding for several items in memory and populations overlap, as in distributed models (Lerner et al in press, 2010;Ursino et al 2011;Cree et al 1999;Becker et al 1997;Masson 1995;Plaut 1995;Moss et al 1994). Such overlap has been the object of studies on in cortical network models and would not change qualitatively the effects observed here (Romani et al 2006;Curti et al 2004).…”

Priming is not all bias: Commentary on Ratcliff and McKoon (1997).

“…So for example, participants are more accurate in identifying a quickly flashed word in a perceptual identification task if it was studied a few minutes or hours previously (e.g., Jacoby & Dallas, 1981). The longevity of this priming distinguishes it from various forms of short term priming phenomena --such as semantic or masked priming --that tend to last a few seconds (e.g., Henderson, Wallis, & Knight, 1984;Forster & Davis, 1984; but for exceptions to this general rule, see Becker, Moscovitch, Behrmann, & Joordens, 1997;.In a recent series of articles, Ratcliff and McKoon (R&M) have challenged the common view that priming reflects a facilitation in processing test stimuli, and argued instead that priming is a bias to interpret test items as previously studied materials (McKoon & Ratcliff, 1995, 1996Ratcliff, Allbritton, McKoon, 1997;Ratcliff, McKoon, 1995, 1996, Ratcliff, McKoon, Verwoerd, 1989. That is, rather than simply reflecting a benefit in processing repeated materials, priming is interpreted as a mixture of benefits for repeated and costs for related study/test items, with costs equaling benefits.…”