Top

Gepubliceerd in:

04-06-2015 | Original Article

Automaticity in fast lexical decision sequential effects: much like telling left from right

Auteurs: Roderick Garton, John A. Davidson

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2016

Abstract

Successive lexical decisions have shown sequential effects where faster word responses and slower nonword responses follow the same versus different prior response. To date, explanations of these effects have been based on processes specific to discriminating words from nonwords. However, a more parsimonious explanation is possible, based on generic choice processes that apply even to left/right discriminations. Under conditions that promote automaticity, this explanation distinctly predicts equal facilitation by response repetition for words and nonwords. This hypothesis was here tested in an experiment involving 82 participants completing 850-trial blocks of lexical decision with a 100 ms response-stimulus interval—a much faster rate of choice succession than previously used—and including a factor of word/nonword discriminability so as to further test the applicability of choice-specific processes. Distinct from earlier findings, sequential effects were found to be identical in sign and substance for words and nonwords. This reliably occurred as facilitation by repetition across the decile distribution of response-times, across high and low levels of word/nonword discriminability, within each block of the run, and in interaction with higher-order sequential effects involving up to four prior trials. The main effect of facilitation by repetition at the second-order was particularly strong, being equal in effect-size to the interactive effect of the word/nonword factor and word/nonword discriminability (η ² = 0.61). Hence, generic choice processes appeared to be sufficient to produce lexical decision sequential effects, independently of choice-specific processes. The findings particularly suggested a primary role for automatic response-facilitation, with accuracy-monitoring and expectancy contributing to higher-order effects. The further role of choice-specific processes in these and other findings, and the utility of lexical decision in studying generic choice processes, are discussed.

vorige artikel Exogenous and endogenous shifts of attention in perihand space

volgende artikel The effect of SNARC compatibility on perceptual accuracy: evidence from object substitution masking

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

d ^* is standardised mean difference with routine correction; viz., g (1 − 3/k), where (per available data) \(g = \frac{{\bar{x}_{\text{A}} - \bar{x}_{\text{R}} }}{{{\text{SD}}_{\text{diff}} }} = \frac{{\bar{x}_{\text{A}} - \bar{x}_{\text{R}} }}{{\sqrt {2{\text{MSE}}} }} = \frac{T}{{\sqrt {2N} }}\) and k = 4 (n _A + n _R − 2) − 1 (Lakens, 2013, Eq. 6; Nakagawa & Cuthill, 2007, Eq. 14). Data from Lima and Huntsman (1997) were not available for this analysis.

Indeed, all studies claiming word FR and nonword FA compiled their target series by dependent uniform sampling and/or run-length restriction, i.e., no more than 3 or 4 words/nonwords in succession. Compiling target series in these ways is not commended for studying sequential effects as it deviates the ratio of alternation to repetition trials from unity, and so potentially provides strategic information (Blais, 2008; Cantor, 1969, pp. 158–159; French & Perruchet, 2009; Schvaneveldt & Chase, 1969, p. 3, n. 4). Moreover, this deviation would, more often than not, be unequal between response alternatives, with the possibility that one decision becomes more strategically conditioned than the other.

For example, if the model has a long-term memory for three items, and a short-term memory for two items, and the strengths (S) for match and mismatch across memories are (per Ratcliff & McKoon, 1995) 1 and 0.2, respectively, and a nonword has strength of 0.1, then, with weights (w) of 0.1 and 0.9 for prior (p) and target (t) items, respectively, the compound-cue \(\sum {S_{p}^{{w_{p} }} S_{t}^{{w_{t} }} }\), summing over all long-term representations, for wW trials is the sum of 1^.1 × 0.2^.9, 0.2^.1 × 1^.9 and 0.2^.1 × 0.2^.9 for match of the prior, target and unpresented items, respectively. This gives 1.29, and, similarly, 1.17 for nW. for drift by greater familiarity to the word decision; and 0.30 for nN and 0.34 for wN trials, for drift by lesser familiarity to the nonword decision. FR by familiarity is thus 0.12 for words, and 0.04 for nonwords. And, assuming that variability increases as drift-rate declines, the latter small effect is also less reliable.

Sequential runs were highly correlated with other indices of randomness, e.g., Pearson rs ranged from 0.91 to 0.98 for Z ² from the runs tests, and Chi squares from ratio and Good’s serial tests of first-order sequences.

Counter-balancing this arrangement might have been more ideal, but in an earlier experiment with the same response-box where 40 participants were free to map hands per response, all but one participant chose the presently used order. Fixing the arrangement also helped with administering other tasks later in the session.

Analysing ERs with inverse-normal transformation (as in Smith, Smith, Provost, & Heathcote, 2009) produced the same effects with equivalent effect-sizes.

This is the recommended Type 8 in Hyndman and Fan (1996): Take m = (p + 1)/3, where p is a proportion of N observations, and then j = [N _p + m], and g = N _p + 3 − j, so that, for x values indexed from 0, the quantile q = (1 − g) × j − 1 + gx _j. Boundary conditions apply. A Perl implementation is available on request.

These pairwise differences are tabulated as Table 2 for RTs, and Table 3 for ERs, in Supplementary Materials.

Exemplifying this point, a post hoc analysis of the role of word frequency (f) was made with respect to the MROM-based account, and reviewer suggestion. Classifying f as per Perea and Carreiras (2003), there was no f-modulation of nonword FR; some sign of more reliable low-to-low-f than high-to-low-f word FR, but only substantially in high NL blocks; and the most reliable word effects were for low-to-high-f word repetitions; there was no high-to-high-f word effect. Thus there was no f-modulation consistent with the choice-specific models. These results are not offered for generalisation. Further details are provided in Supplementary Materials.

Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., et al. (2007). The english lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459. doi:10.3758/BF03193014.CrossRefPubMed

Bargh, J. A., & Ferguson, M. J. (2000). Beyond behaviorism: on the automaticity of higher mental processes. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 925–945. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.126.6.925.CrossRefPubMed

Bentin, S., & McCarthy, G. (1994). The effects of immediate stimulus repetition on reaction time and event-related potentials in tasks of different complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 130–149. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.1.130.CrossRef

Bertelson, P. (1961). Sequential redundancy and speed in a serial two-choice responding task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13, 90–102. doi:10.1080/17470216108416478.CrossRef

Blais, C. (2008). Random without replacement is not random: caveat emptor. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 961–968. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.4.961.CrossRefPubMed

Borowsky, R., & Besner, D. (1993). Visual word recognition: a multi-stage activation model. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 813–840. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.4.813.CrossRefPubMed

Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: a critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–990. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.977.CrossRefPubMed

Campbell, K. C., & Proctor, R. W. (1993). Repetition effects with categorizable stimulus and response sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1345–1362. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.6.1345.CrossRef

Cantor, G. N. (1969). Stimulus familiarization effect and the change effect in children’s motor task behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 144–160. doi:10.1037/h0027007.CrossRefPubMed

Cho, R. Y., Nystrom, L. E., Jones, A. D., Braver, T. S., Holmes, P. J., & Cohen, J. D. (2002). Mechanisms underlying dependencies of performance on stimulus history in a two-alternative forced-choice task. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 2, 283–299. doi:10.3758/CABN.2.4.283.CrossRef

Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. T., & Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance (Vol. 6, pp. 535–555). London: Academic.

Davelaar, E., & Coltheart, M. (1975). Effects of interpolated items on the association effect in lexical decision tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 6, 269–272. doi:10.3758/BF03336658.CrossRef

Davis, C. J., & Lupker, S. J. (2006). Masked inhibitory priming in English: evidence for lexical inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 668–687. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.668.PubMed

De Mornay Davies, P. (1998). Automatic semantic priming: the contribution of lexical- and semantic-level processes. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 10, 389–412. doi:10.1080/713752286.CrossRef

Dufau, S., Grainger, J., & Ziegler, J. C. (2012). How to say “no” to a nonword: a leaky competing accumulator model of lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1117–1128. doi:10.1037/a0026948.CrossRefPubMed

Ells, J. G., & Gotts, G. H. (1977). Serial reaction time as a function of the nature of repeated events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 234–242. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.3.2.234.PubMed

Entus, A., & Bindra, D. (1970). Common features of the “repetition” and “same-different” effects in reaction time experiments. Perception and Psychophysics, 7, 143–148. doi:10.3758/BF03208643.CrossRef

Forbach, G. B., Stanners, R. F., & Hochhaus, L. (1974). Repetition and practice effects in a lexical decision task. Memory and Cognition, 2, 337–339. doi:10.3758/BF03209005.CrossRefPubMed

French, R. M., & Perruchet, P. (2009). Generating constrained randomized sequences: item frequency matters. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1233–1241. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1233.CrossRefPubMed

Gao, J., Wong-Lin, K., Holmes, P., Simen, P., & Cohen, J. D. (2009). Sequential effects in two-choice reaction time tasks: decomposition and synthesis of mechanisms. Neural Computation, 21, 2407–2436. doi:10.1162/neco.2009.09-08-866.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Gordon, B. (1983). Lexical access and lexical decision: mechanisms of frequency sensitivity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 24–44. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(83)80004-8.CrossRef

Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: a multiple readout model. Psychological Review, 103, 518–565. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.518.CrossRefPubMed

Hale, D. J. (1967). Sequential effects in a two-choice serial reaction task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 133–141. doi:10.1080/14640746708400082.CrossRefPubMed

Heathcote, A. (1996). RTSYS: a DOS application for the analysis of reaction time data. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 427–445. doi:10.3758/BF03200523.CrossRef

Higgins, D., & Gettys, C. (1977). A partial repetition effect in choice reaction time for multidimensional stimuli. Perception and Psychophysics, 21, 298–306. doi:10.3758/BF03199478.CrossRef

Hohle, R. H., & Gholson, B. (1968). Choice reaction times with equally and unequally probable alternatives. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 95–98. doi:10.1037/h0026175.CrossRefPubMed

Huettel, S. A., Mack, P. B., & McCarthy, G. (2002). Perceiving patterns in random series: dynamic processing of sequence in prefrontal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 485–490. doi:10.1038/nn841.PubMed

Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45, 188–196. doi:10.1037/h0056940.CrossRefPubMed

Hyndman, R. J., & Fan, Y. (1996). Quantiles in statistical packages. American Statistician, 50, 361–365. doi:10.1080/00031305.1996.10473566.

Jentzsch, I., & Leuthold, H. (2005). Response conflict determines sequential effects in serial response time tasks with short response-stimulus intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 731–748. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.4.731.PubMed

Jentzsch, I., & Sommer, W. (2001). Sequence-sensitive subcomponents of P300: topographical analyses and dipole source localization. Psychophysiology, 38, 607–621. doi:10.1111/1469-8986.3840607.CrossRefPubMed

Jentzsch, I., & Sommer, W. (2002). Functional localization and mechanisms of sequential effects in serial reaction time tasks. Perception and Psychophysics, 64, 1169–1188. doi:10.3758/BF03194765.CrossRefPubMed

Jones, M., Curran, T., Mozer, M. C., & Wilder, M. H. (2013). Sequential effects in response time reveal learning mechanisms and event representations. Psychological Review, 120, 628–666. doi:10.1037/a0033180.CrossRefPubMed

Jones, M., Mozer, M. C., & Kinoshita, S. (2008). Optimal response initiation: why recent experience matters. Advances in neural information processing systems 21. http://papers.nips.cc/. Accessed 19 Apr 2015 (Electronic Version).

Kirby, N. H. (1972). Sequential effects in serial reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96, 32–36. doi:10.1037/h0033464.CrossRef

Kirby, N. H. (1976). Sequential effects in two-choice reaction time: automatic facilitation or subjective expectancy? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 567–577. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.2.4.567.PubMed

Kirby, N. H. (1980). Sequential effects in choice reaction time. In A. T. Welford (Ed.), Reaction times (pp. 129–172). London: Academic.

Kornblum, S. (1969). Sequential determinants of information processing in serial and discrete choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 76, 113–131. doi:10.1037/h0027245.CrossRef

Kuchinke, L., Hofman, M., Jacobs, A. M., Frühholz, S., Tamm, S., & Hermann, M. (2011). Human striatal activation during adjustment of the response criterion in visual word recognition. Neuroimage, 54, 2412–2417. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.062.CrossRefPubMed

Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Laming, D. R. J. (1969). Subjective probability in choice-reaction experiments. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 6, 81–120. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(69)90030-3.CrossRef

Leonard, J. A., Newman, R. C., & Carpenter, A. (1966). On the handling of heavy bias in a self-paced task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 130–141. doi:10.1080/14640746608400020.CrossRefPubMed

Lima, S. D., & Huntsman, L. A. (1997). Sequential dependencies in the lexical decision task. Psychological Research, 60, 264–269. doi:10.1007/BF00419412.CrossRefPubMed

Marcel, T., & Forrin, B. (1974). Naming latency and the repetition of stimulus categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 450–460. doi:10.1037/h0037173.CrossRef

McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Spreading activation versus compound cue accounts of priming: mediated priming revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1155–1172. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.18.6.1155.CrossRefPubMed

McNamara, T. P. (1992). Theories of priming: I. Associative distance and lag. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1173–1190. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.18.6.1173.CrossRef

McNamara, T. P. (1994). Theories of priming: II. Types of primes. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 507–520. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.3.507.CrossRef

McNamara, T. P., & Altarriba, J. (1988). Depth of spreading activation revisited: Semantic mediated priming occurs in lexical decisions. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 545–559. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(88)90025-3.CrossRef

Medler, D. A., & Binder, J. R. (2005). MCWord: An on-line orthographic database of the English language. http://www.neuro.mcw.edu/mcword/. Accessed 11 Nov 2010.

Melis, A., Soetens, E., & van der Molen, M. W. (2002). Process-specific slowing with advancing age: evidence derived from the analysis of sequential effects. Brain and Cognition, 49, 420–435. doi:10.1006/brcg.2001.1508.CrossRefPubMed

Meyer, D. E., Schvaneveldt, R. W., & Ruddy, M. G. (1974). Functions of graphemic and phonemic codes in visual word-recognition. Memory and Cognition, 2, 309–321. doi:10.3758/BF03209002.CrossRefPubMed

Mozer, M. C., Kinoshita, S., & Shettel, M. (2007). Sequential dependencies in human behavior offer insights into cognitive control. In W. D. Gray (Ed.), Integrated models of cognitive systems (pp. 180–193). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Nakagawa, S., & Cuthill, I. C. (2007). Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biological Review, 82, 591–605. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00027.x.CrossRef

Oberfeld, D., & Franke, T. (2013). Evaluating the robustness of repeated measures analyses: the case of small sample sizes and nonnormal data. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 792–812. doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0281-2.CrossRefPubMed

Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. C. (1991). Procedural learning: 2. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded-choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 33–48. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.17.1.33.CrossRef

Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2003). Sequential effects in the lexical decision task: the role of the item frequency of the previous trial. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 385–401. doi:10.1080/02724980244000387.CrossRef

Perea, M., & Estévez, A. (2006). First-order sequential effects in the go/no-go lexical decision task. Cognitiva, 18, 101–110. doi:10.1174/021435506778148658.CrossRef

Pickering, J. (1976). The perception of familiar stimuli. Perception, 5, 251–264. doi:10.1068/p050251.CrossRefPubMed

Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1968). Repetition effects and signal classification strategies in serial choice-response tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 232–240. doi:10.1080/14640746808400157.CrossRefPubMed

Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1969). Psychological refractory delay and response-stimulus interval duration in serial choice-response tasks. Acta Psychologica, 40, 195–219. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(69)90051-1.CrossRef

Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1992). Many happy repetitions: a celebration of the “Bertelson Repetition Effect” 1961–1991. In J. Alegria, D. Holender, J. Junca de Morais, & M. Radeau (Eds.), Analytic approaches to human cognition (pp. 313–330). Oxford: North-Holland.

Rabbitt, P. M. A., & Vyas, S. (1979). Signal recency effects can be distinguished from signal repetition effects in serial CRT tasks. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 33, 88–95. doi:10.1037/h0081708.CrossRef

Rastle, K., Harrington, J., & Coltheart, M. (2002). 358534 nonwords: the ARC nonword database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 1339–1362. doi:10.1080/02724980244000099.CrossRef

Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510–532. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.510.CrossRefPubMed

Ratcliff, R., Gomez, P., & McKoon, G. (2004). A diffusion model account of the lexical decision task. Psychological Review, 111, 159–182. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.159.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1988). A retrieval theory of priming in memory. Psychological Review, 95, 385–408. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.3.385.CrossRefPubMed

Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1995). Sequential effects in lexical decision: tests of compound-cue retrieval theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1380–1388. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.5.1380.CrossRefPubMed

Remington, R. J. (1969). Analysis of sequential effects in choice reaction times. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 82, 250–257. doi:10.1037/h0028122.CrossRefPubMed

Schvaneveldt, R. W., & Chase, W. G. (1969). Sequential effects in choice reaction times. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80, 1–8. doi:10.1037/h0027144.CrossRef

Shelton, J. R., & Martin, R. C. (1992). How semantic is automatic semantic priming? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1191–1210. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.18.6.1191.CrossRefPubMed

Smith, J. L., Smith, E. A., Provost, A. L., & Heathcote, A. (2009). Sequence effects support the conflict theory of N2 and P3 in the Go/NoGo task. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 75, 217–226. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.11.002.CrossRefPubMed

Soetens, E. (1998). Localizing sequential effects in serial choice reaction time with the information reduction procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 547–568. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.2.547.

Soetens, E., Boer, L. C., & Hueting, J. E. (1985). Expectancy or automatic facilitation? Separating sequential effects in two-choice reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 598–616. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.11.5.598.

Soetens, E., Deboeck, M., & Hueting, J. (1984). Automatic aftereffects in two-choice reaction time: a mathematical representation of some concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 581–598. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.10.4.581.PubMed

Soetens, E., Melis, A., & Notebaert, W. (2004). Sequence learning and sequential effects. Psychological Research, 69, 124–137. doi:10.1007/s00426-003-0163-4.CrossRefPubMed

Soetens, E., & Notebaert, W. (2005). Response monitoring and expectancy in random serial tasks. Acta Psychologica, 119, 189–216. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.01.003.CrossRefPubMed

Sommer, W., Leuthold, H., & Soetens, E. (1999). Covert signs of expectancy in serial choice reaction time tasks revealed by event-related potentials. Perception and Psychophysics, 61, 342–353. doi:10.3758/BF03206892.CrossRefPubMed

Taylor, T., & Lupker, S. J. (2001). Sequential effects in naming: a time criterion account. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 117–138. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.27.1.117.CrossRefPubMed

Tubau, E., & López-Moliner, J. (2009). Knowing what to respond in the future does not cancel the influence of past events. PLoS One, 4, e5607. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005607.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Vervaeck, K. R., & Boer, L. C. (1980). Sequential effects in two-choice reaction time: subjective expectancy and automatic aftereffect at short response-stimulus intervals. Acta Psychologica, 44, 175–190. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(80)90066-9.CrossRef

Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ratcliff, R., Gomez, P., & McKoon, G. (2008). A diffusion model account of criterion shifts in the lexical decision task. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 140–159. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.04.006.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Zeelenberg, R., Pecher, D., de Kok, D., & Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (1998). Inhibition from nonword primes in lexical decision reexamined: the critical influence of instructions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1068–1079. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.24.4.1068.CrossRef

Zeelenberg, R., Wagenmakers, E.-J., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2004). Nonword repetition priming in lexical decision reverses as a function of study task and speed stress. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 270–277. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.270.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Automaticity in fast lexical decision sequential effects: much like telling left from right
Auteurs: Roderick Garton
John A. Davidson
Publicatiedatum: 04-06-2015
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2016
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0671-z

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2016

Mental subtraction and multiplication recruit both phonological and visuospatial resources: evidence from a symmetric dual-task design

Interference of lateralized distractors on arithmetic problem solving: a functional role for attention shifts in mental calculation

An action-incongruent secondary task modulates prediction accuracy in experienced performers: evidence for motor simulation

Professional mathematicians differ from controls in their spatial-numerical associations

Top-down social modulation of interpersonal observation–execution

Working memory capacity, controlled attention and aiming performance under pressure