| Literature DB >> 22427915 |
Hecke Schrobsdorff1, Matthias Ihrke, Jörg Behrendt, J Michael Herrmann, Marcus Hasselhorn.
Abstract
The present study addresses the problem whether negative priming (NP) is due to information processing in perception, recognition or selection. We argue that most NP studies confound priming and perceptual similarity of prime-probe episodes and implement a color-switch paradigm in order to resolve the issue. In a series of three identity negative priming experiments with verbal naming response, we determined when NP and positive priming (PP) occur during a trial. The first experiment assessed the impact of target color on priming effects. It consisted of two blocks, each with a different fixed target color. With respect to target color no differential priming effects were found. In Experiment 2 the target color was indicated by a cue for each trial. Here we resolved the confounding of perceptual similarity and priming condition. In trials with coinciding colors for prime and probe, we found priming effects similar to Experiment 1. However, trials with a target color switch showed such effects only in trials with role-reversal (distractor-to-target or target-to-distractor), whereas the positive priming (PP) effect in the target-repetition trials disappeared. Finally, Experiment 3 split trial processing into two phases by presenting the trial-wise color cue only after the stimulus objects had been recognized. We found recognition in every priming condition to be faster than in control trials. We were hence led to the conclusion that PP is strongly affected by perception, in contrast to NP which emerges during selection, i.e., the two effects cannot be explained by a single mechanism.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22427915 PMCID: PMC3299715 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032946
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1An example sequence of stimuli of
in the part with target color green. All realized experimental conditions are shown except the control condition, i.e., unrelated objects in prime and probe. The fixation cross is omitted in the shown sequence for clarity.
Summary of results of Experiment 1.
| Target color | ||||
| Red | Green | |||
| Condition | Mean RT [ | Error rate [%] | Mean RT [ | Error rate [%] |
| CO |
| 2.1 (3.3) |
| 1.4 (2.2) |
| DT |
| 2.8 (2.5) |
| 2.2 (2.9) |
| TT |
| 1.4 (2.4) |
| 1.6 (2.4) |
| TD |
| 1.9 (2.3) |
| 2.2 (2.2) |
| DD |
| 2.2 (2.6) |
| 2.3 (3.1) |
Standard deviation in parentheses.
Difference of CO and priming condition.
Figure 2An example sequence of stimuli of
. A trial begins with the display of a grey color word, followed by the actual stimuli. The fixation cross is omitted in the shown sequence for clarity.
Summary of results of Experiment 2.
| Color repetition | Color switch | |||
| Condition | Mean RT [ms] | Error rate [%] | Mean RT [ms] | Error rate [%] |
| CO |
| 2.0 (2.8) |
| 2.2 (3.2) |
| DT |
| 2.1 (2.0) |
| 2.0 (1.9) |
| TT |
| 1.9 (2.2) |
| 2.1 (2.8) |
| TD |
| 1.6 (2.2) |
| 1.8 (2.1) |
| DD |
| 1.8 (2.4) |
| 2.8 (3.3) |
Standard deviation in parentheses.
Difference of CO and priming condition.
Figure 3An example sequence of stimuli of
. A trial begins with the display of the stimulus compound which is replaced by the color cue after a button press by the subjects. The fixation cross and the mask are omitted in the shown sequence for clarity.
Summary of results of Experiment 3.
| Condition | Mean RT [ms] | Error rate [%] |
| CO |
| 4.5 (3.4) |
| Dd |
| 3.9 (3.2) |
| Ts |
| 3.5 (2.9) |
| Td |
| 3.5 (1.6) |
| Ds |
| 4.2 (2.4) |
Standard deviation in parentheses.
Difference of CO and priming condition.