Role of set in visual word recognition: Activation and activation blocking as nonautomatic processes.

Abstract

or dbesner@watarts. uwaterloo.ca. 1 We do not like the term semantic priming because it is associated with a particular mechanism thought to underlie the effect. Given that it has been used extensively throughout the literature we use it (reluctantly) to minimize misunderstanding.2 In Morton's (1969) conceptualization, a logogen contains no semantic or associative information and has no direct links to other logogens.

Divided attention modulates semantic activation: Evidence from a nonletter-level prime task

“…In summary, these results suggest that semantic activation is critically modulated by the amount of attentional resources allocated to the prime word, and that auditory divided attention affects the processing from the word level to the semantic level, consistent with numerous studies of visual word recognition (e.g., Besner, Stolz, & Boutilier, 1997;Chiappe et al, 1996;Smith & Besner, 2001;Stolz & Besner, 1996). In addition, the difference in pattern between semantic priming and repetition priming permits us to reject other explanations for our results, such as the idea that the high divided-attention condition caused spreading activation to decay more rapidly than did the other conditions or that tone decision delayed target responding so that spreading activation from a fully activated prime word decayed prior to target responding.…”

“…Prior research has been interpreted to indicate that when attention is directed to the letter level of the prime word, priming is interrupted or modulated (Besner et al, 1990;Chiappe et al, 1996;Friedrich et al, 1991;Henik et al, 1983;Henik et al, 1994;Hoffman & MacMillan, 1985;Kahneman & Henik, 1981;Kaye & Brown, 1985;Marí-Beffa et al, 2000;Smith, 1979;Smith & Besner, 2001;Smith et al, 1996Smith et al, , 2000Smith et al, 1983;Stolz & Besner, 1996, 1998). An important contribution of our study is the suggestion that the influence of the amount of attentional resources used for the prime task is not limited to processing at the letter level: It must influence the processing of low-level features of words, thereby affecting the magnitude of semantic activation.…”

“…This result suggests that semantic activation is influenced by the level of prime word processing (Besner, Smith, & MacLeod, 1990;Chiappe, Smith, & Besner, 1996;Friedrich, Henik, & Tzelgov, 1991;Henik et al, 1983;Henik, Friedrich, Tzelgov, & Tramer, 1994;Hoffman & MacMillan, 1985;Kahneman & Henik, 1981;Kaye & Brown, 1985;Marí-Beffa, Fuentes, Catena, & Houghton, 2000;Smith, 1979;Smith, Meiran, & Besner, 1996Smith, Theodor, & Franklin, 1983;Stolz & Besner, 1996, 1998. Besner et al (1990) investigated the influence of the letter search task on priming when the prime and target were presented simultaneously.…”

Case mixing and the right parietal cortex: evidence from rTMS

“…Thus, the word superiority effect (the better identification of letters in words than in nonwords) can be eliminated when participants know the position of the critical letter in advance and focus their attention there (Johnston & McClelland, 1974). Similarly Stroop interference can be reduced (Besner & Stolz, 1999) and there is no semantic priming (Stolz & Besner, 1996; when p articipants attend to individual letters (but see Mari-Beffe et al, 2000). Laberge (1983), using a probe detection procedure embedded in a reading task, further showed that attention was spread across the whole of a 5-letter stimulus when words were identified, whereas it could be focused at the letter level when letter discrimination was required.…”

Parallel distributed processing and lexical-semantic effects in visual word recognition: Are a few stages necessary?

“…Indeed, an early theory of word identification subscribed to the idea of a singular "mental lexicon," in which the representations of orthography (spelling), phonology (pronunciation), and semantics (meaning) were all packaged together for words known to the reader (e.g., Treisman, 1960). However, over the last 4 decades, a number of empirical observations in both normal participants and those with acquired brain damage have led a wide range of investigators to suppose that multiple stages of processing are needed to account for lexicalsemantic processing effects (e.g., Becker, 1979;Becker & Killion, 1977;Besner & Smith, 1992;Brown & Besner, 2002;Coltheart, Curtis, Atkins, & Haller, 1993;Coltheart, Rastle, Perry, Langdon, & Zeigler, 2001;Forster & Davis, 1984;Grainger & Jacobs, 1996;McClelland & Rumelhart, 1981;McClelland, 1987;Morton, 1969Morton, , 1979Morton & Patterson, 1980;Neely, 1977Stanners, Jastrembski, & Westbrook, 1975;Stolz & Besner, 1996, 1998; see also Carr & Pollatsek's, 1985, review).…”