1986
DOI: 10.1016/0001-6918(86)90019-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Primed-lexical decision: The effect of varying the stimulus-onset asynchrony of prime and target

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
32
1

Year Published

1992
1992
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
3
32
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Given the results, it seems that the temporal proximity between the onsets of tactile and visual stimuli, rather than the entire duration of the task-irrelevant tactile stimuli, increased RTs in the discrimination task. The present results are consistent with the finding that it is generally easy to ignore task-irrelevant information (i.e., the tactile patterns in this experiment) when the onset of a target is temporally separated from that of the task-irrelevant primes and distractors (e.g., de Groot, Thomassen, & Hudson, 1986;Shore, Barnes, & Spence, 2006).…”
Section: Reaction Timesupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Given the results, it seems that the temporal proximity between the onsets of tactile and visual stimuli, rather than the entire duration of the task-irrelevant tactile stimuli, increased RTs in the discrimination task. The present results are consistent with the finding that it is generally easy to ignore task-irrelevant information (i.e., the tactile patterns in this experiment) when the onset of a target is temporally separated from that of the task-irrelevant primes and distractors (e.g., de Groot, Thomassen, & Hudson, 1986;Shore, Barnes, & Spence, 2006).…”
Section: Reaction Timesupporting
confidence: 91%
“…As I have argued elsewhere (Hagoort, 1993), there is convincing evidence (Balota & Chumbley, 1984;De Groot, 1984;De Groot, Thomassen, & Hudson, 1986;Keefe & Neely, 1990;Neely, 1977Neely, , 1991Neely, Keefe, & Ross, 1989;Seidenberg, Waters, Sanders, & Langer, 1984) that priming effects can be attributed to both automatic and more controlled priming mechanisms.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…However, this assumption requires further qualification. There is convincing evidence (Balota & Chumbley, 1984;De Groot, 1984;De Groot, Thomassen, & Hudson, 1986;Keefe & Neely, 1990;Neely, 1977Neely, , 1991Neely, Keefe, & Ross, 1989;Seidenberg, Waters, Sanders, & Langer, 1984) that priming effects can be attributed to a number of different mechanisms. argue that three different processes have to be assumed to account for the results in a large number of priming studies in which a lexical decision task has been used.…”
Section: Priming As An Index Of Automatic and Controlled Processingmentioning
confidence: 99%