Theories of Priming II : Types of Primes Timothy McNamara Journal of Experimental Psychology,1994

1. Theories of Priming II : Types of Primes Timothy McNamara Journalof Experimental Psychology,1994 조 성 식

2. Contents Introduction Experiment 1 : unrelated ⇔ neutral, nonword (unrelated & neutral) Experiment 2 : unrelated ⇔ neutral, nonword (unrelated & nonword) Experiment 3 : same as experiment 1 but in rapidly paced Experiment 4 : same as McKoon & Ratcliff but target location changed General Discussions Conclusions

3. Introduction (1/3) The Goals of this article • To determine how association in memory gives rise to priming Spreading-Activation Model vs. Non-Spreading-Activation Model (Compound Cue model ) - McKoon & Ratcliff(1992,94) argued against the Spreading-Activation Model.

4. Introduction (2/3) In the first article (1992) • Three step mediated priming in lexical decisions occurred. • (e.g. gift – birthday – cake – pie ) • ☞ predicted by spreading-activation theories but not the non-SAM. • 2. Semantic priming occurred at a lag of 1 but not a lag of 2 • in a rapidly paced sequential task. • ☞ compound cues contained three but not four items. • 3. If compound cues contained three items, • ☞ lion-tiger-vase should be faster than truck-tiger-vase but not. • ☞ lonk-lion-tiger should be slower than long-lion-tiger but not.

5. Introduction (3/3) Types of Primes

6. Experiment 1[ unrelated ⇔ neutral, nonword (unrelated & neutral) ] Goals • to compare performance in the unrelated, • neutral, and nonword prime conditions. • (manipulated unrelated & neutral) Methods • Subjects : 39 undergraduates • Materials & Design • Procedure Results

7. Experiment 2[unrelated ⇔ neutral, nonword (unrelated & nonword)] Goals • to compare performance in the unrelated, neutral, and nonword prime conditions. • (manipulated unrelated & nonword) Methods • Subjects : 40 undergraduates • identical to experiment 1 except that between trial relatedness was manipulated • in the unrelated & nonword prime conditions. Results

8. Experiment 3 (same as experiment 1 but in rapidly paced) Goals • Any differences in shorter interval ? Methods • Subjects : 56 undergraduates • identical to experiment 1 but removing nonword prime trials • and reducing elapsed 3,200ms to 550ms Results

9. Experiment 4 (same as McKoon & Ratcliff but target location changed) Goals • To compare with McKoon & Ratcliff’s experiments Methods • Subjects : 40 undergraduates • same materials and design as experiment 3 • same as McKoon & Ratcliff but target location changed Results

10. General Discussion (1/3) The important findings in the four experiments • Semantic priming occurred in each experiment. • The speed and the accuracy of responses were virtually identical • in the unrelated-word, neutral, and nonword prime conditions. • No evidence that between-trials semantic priming was larger in either the neutral or • nonword prime conditions than in the unrelated-word prime condition. Summary of Parts I & II - Three-step priming seems to occur in lexical decisions. -> predicted by spreading activation but not by non spreading activation. - Compound cues contain three but not four successive items. -> but cake–pie–letter does not occur. (not faster than case-pie-letter) • If compound cues contain three items, then the lexical status of • the item preceding the prime should affect responses to the target. • -> but lonk-cake–pie were not slower than long-case-pie. - No evidence that performance was inhibited or facilitated by nonword or neutral primes. No evidence that these primes were replaced by targets on preceding trials.

11. General Discussion (2/3) More arguments on Compound cue model • Mediated priming • • Spreading Activation : prime - mediator 1 - mediator 2 - target • • Compound cue : prime – target (weakly and directly associated) • Priming on post target word • • Spreading Activation : prime – target – post target • • Compound cue : prime – target – post target (not expected if the post target word • receives most of the weight in the compound cue) • Sequential effects • • Compound cue provides a new model of sequential effects ? • • Sequential effects are a response effect, not a memory effect.

12. General Discussion (3/3) Alternative models • Masson’s model(1992) • • Pronunciation Task • Hopfield net(1986) • • organized conceptually as three processing modules, which correspond to • orthographic, phonological, and semantic knowledge.

13. Conclusions The results were more consistent with Spreading Activation theory but a critic could argue that : • Multiple-step priming is not definitive. • (because weak direct associations may exist between the primes and the targets.) • It may be possible to explain the lag effects if the parameters in a model of memory and a model of response latency are set in just the right way, or • nonword and neutral primes are replaced by extralist contextual elements. Spreading-Activation continues to be a compelling candidate for a basic mechanism of retrieval in human memory. ※ PDP (Parallel Distributed Processing) : 병렬분산처리 - 인지과정이 뇌의 여러 영역에 분산되어 있는 지식을 이용하는 병렬적 조작에 기초 - 기억은 뉴런과 같은 단위들의 네트워크로 구성

14. * * * * * 350 ms

15. Blank interval 500 ms

16. prime 300 ms

17. Blank interval 50 ms

18. target m key for words, z key for nonwords

19. ERROR A response was incorrect. 1 sec

20. Blank interval for next trial : 2 sec