2020
DOI: 10.3758/s13421-020-01021-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Study–test congruence of response levels in item stimulus–response priming

Abstract: We investigated stimulus-response (S-R) memory links during object priming using a binary associative size judgement paradigm. At study, participants decided which of two objects was bigger in real life and, at test, made the same or the reverse judgement. We examined the effects of response congruence on item S-R priming in the associative paradigm. In Experiment 1, a task reversal manipulation had minimal impact on RT priming when classifications were congruent for both recombined objects between study and t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This should have effectively and considerably reduced differences in cognitive effort between contrasting categories. Although we acknowledge that RT‐matching may still be insufficient to perfectly match effort and familiarity strength between any two categories, changes in RTs remain a popular proxy for cognitive effort (Beatty, 1982; Gomes & Mayes, 2015a, 2015b, 2020; Montefinese et al., 2013; Porter et al., 2007; Võ et al., 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…This should have effectively and considerably reduced differences in cognitive effort between contrasting categories. Although we acknowledge that RT‐matching may still be insufficient to perfectly match effort and familiarity strength between any two categories, changes in RTs remain a popular proxy for cognitive effort (Beatty, 1982; Gomes & Mayes, 2015a, 2015b, 2020; Montefinese et al., 2013; Porter et al., 2007; Võ et al., 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Rearranged pairs maintained their key binding from encoding to test in the implicit block, such that if a participant responded yes at encoding, then the response to the rearranged trial at test would also be yes. This congruency ensures that any differences in reaction time between intact and rearranged trials is a result of condition, and not changes in the stimulus-response binding (Davis et al, 2021;Dew & Giovanello, 2010;Gomes & Mayes, 2020). The lists were counterbalanced such that each pair was assigned to each pair type condition and to both the implicit and explicit tasks across participants.…”
Section: Stimulimentioning
confidence: 99%