Literature DB >> 26040577

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

Roderick Garton1, John A Davidson2.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26040577     DOI: 10.1007/s00426-015-0671-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Res        ISSN: 0340-0727


  51 in total

Review 1.  Beyond behaviorism: on the automaticity of higher mental processes.

Authors:  J A Bargh; M J Ferguson
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 17.737

2.  Perceiving patterns in random series: dynamic processing of sequence in prefrontal cortex.

Authors:  Scott A Huettel; Peter B Mack; Gregory McCarthy
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 24.884

3.  Masked inhibitory priming in english: evidence for lexical inhibition.

Authors:  Colin J Davis; Stephen J Lupker
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Functions of graphemic and phonemic codes in visual word-recognition.

Authors:  D E Meyer; R W Schvaneveldt; M G Ruddy
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1974-03

5.  Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: a critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English.

Authors:  Marc Brysbaert; Boris New
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2009-11

6.  The perception of familiar stimuli.

Authors:  J Pickering
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1976       Impact factor: 1.490

Review 7.  Visual word recognition: a multistage activation model.

Authors:  R Borowsky; D Besner
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  The English Lexicon Project.

Authors:  David A Balota; Melvin J Yap; Michael J Cortese; Keith A Hutchison; Brett Kessler; Bjorn Loftis; James H Neely; Douglas L Nelson; Greg B Simpson; Rebecca Treiman
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2007-08

9.  Knowing what to respond in the future does not cancel the influence of past events.

Authors:  Elisabet Tubau; Joan López-Moliner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-05-29       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs.

Authors:  Daniël Lakens
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-11-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.