Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction and Overview
Summary
Summary
General Summary
Findings
Method
Chapter VII General Discussion
Theoretical Significance of Findings
References
All Topics
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology

Priming processes in semantic memory

Profile image of Robert LorchRobert Lorch

1980

https://doi.org/10.7275/HQ6W-4E95
visibility

…

description

183 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Rayner and Mike Royer. I would also like to acknowledge a part cular debt of gratitude to Jerome L. Myers for his careful and unselfish guidance as the chairperson of my committee and as my teacher for six years.

Related papers

The Influence of Working Memory Load on Semantic Priming
Keith Hutchison

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 2014

The present research examines the nature of the different processes that have been proposed to underlie semantic priming. Specifically, it has been argued that priming arises as a result of automatic target activation and/or the use of strategies like prospective expectancy generation and retrospective semantic matching. This article investigates the extent that these processes rely on cognitive resources by experimentally manipulating working memory load. To disentangle prospective and retrospective processes, prime-target pairs were selected such that they were symmetrically associated (e.g., answer-question; SYM) or asymmetrically associated in either the forward direction (e.g., panda-bear; FA) or the backward direction (e.g., ball-catch; BA). The results showed that priming for FA pairs completely evaporated under a high working memory load but that it remained stable for BA and SYM pairs. This was taken to mean that prospective processes, which are assumed to cause FA priming,...

View PDFchevron_right
Does a Working Memory Load Really Influence Semantic Priming? A Self-replication Attempt
Keith Hutchison

Collabra, 2017

The present paper describes two attempts to replicate a recent study of ours in the semantic priming domain . In that study, we observed that semantic priming for forward associates (e.g., panda-bear) completely evaporated when participants' working memory was taxed, whereas backward (e.g., baby-stork) and symmetric associates (e.g., cat-dog) showed no ill-effects of a secondary task. This was the case for relatively long and short stimulus onset asynchronies (i.e., 1,200 ms and 200 ms, respectively). The results thus suggested that prospective target activation is, contrary to what some theories of semantic memory posit, not an automatic process. However, the two replication studies reported here cast serious doubt on this conclusion. A Bayesian analysis of all the available data indicated that there is at least substantial evidence for a priming effect in every condition, except for forward associates in the short SOA condition. The null hypothesis is still supported in the latter condition, though the replication studies weakened the evidence for a null effect. The theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.

View PDFchevron_right
Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless …
James Neely

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Prior to each visually presented target letter string in a speeded word-nonword classification task, either BIRD, BODY, BUILDING, or xxx appeared as a priming event. When the target was a word, it was (a) a name of a type of bird on most BiRD-prime trials; (b) a name of part of ...

View PDFchevron_right
Semantic priming in the lexical decision task: Roles of prospec-tive prime-generated expectancies an
James Neely

1989

In semantic priming paradigms for lexical decisions, the probability that a word target is semantically related to its prime (the relatedness proportion) has been confounded with the probability that a target is a nonword, given that it is unrelated to its prime (the nonword ratio). This study unconfounded these two probabilities in a lexical decision task with category names as primes and with high-and low-dominance exemplars as targets. Semantic priming for highdominance exemplars was modulated by the relatedness proportion and, to a lesser degree, by the nonword ratio. However, the nonword ratio exerted a stronger influence than did the relatedness proportion on semantic priming for low-dominance exemplars and on the nonword facilitation effect (i.e., the superiority in performance for nonword targets that follow a category name rather than a neutral XXX prime). These results suggest that semantic priming for lexical decisions is affected by both a prospective prime-generated expectancy, modulated by the relatedness proportion, and a retrospective target/prime semantic matching process, modulated by the nonword ratio. People are typically faster and more accurate in responding to a target word when it is accompanied by or immediately preceded by a semantically related priming word, relative to an unrelated priming word (e.g,, Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1971; Neely, 1976). This semantic priming effect has most often been studied in the lexical decision task, in which subjects indicate whether a target letter string (e.g., robin or tark) is a word or a nonword. The relatedness proportion effect is the finding that semantic priming increases in magnitude with increases in the proportion of related word-prime/word-target trials-a proportion hereafter referred to as the relatedness proportion. The relatedness proportion effect is very robust and has been obtained across a wide range of procedural variations in the lexical decision task (de Groot,

View PDFchevron_right
Semantic priming in the lexical decision task: Roles of prospective prime- …
James Neely

Journal of Experimental …

In semantic priming paradigms for lexical decisions, the probability that a word target is semantically related to its prime (the relatedness proportion) has been confounded with the probability that a target is a nonword, given that it is unrelated to its prime (the nonword ratio). This study ...

View PDFchevron_right
Semantic priming in the lexical decision task: Roles of prospective prime-generated expectancies and retrospective semantic matching
James Neely

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1989

In semantic priming paradigms for lexical decisions, the probability that a word target is semantically related to its prime (the relatedness proportion) has been confounded with the probability that a target is a nonword, given that it is unrelated to its prime (the nonword ratio). This study unconfounded these two probabilities in a lexical decision task with category names as primes and with high-and low-dominance exemplars as targets. Semantic priming for highdominance exemplars was modulated by the relatedness proportion and, to a lesser degree, by the nonword ratio. However, the nonword ratio exerted a stronger influence than did the relatedness proportion on semantic priming for low-dominance exemplars and on the nonword facilitation effect (i.e., the superiority in performance for nonword targets that follow a category name rather than a neutral XXX prime). These results suggest that semantic priming for lexical decisions is affected by both a prospective prime-generated expectancy, modulated by the relatedness proportion, and a retrospective target/prime semantic matching process, modulated by the nonword ratio. People are typically faster and more accurate in responding to a target word when it is accompanied by or immediately preceded by a semantically related priming word, relative to an unrelated priming word (e.g,, Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1971; Neely, 1976). This semantic priming effect has most often been studied in the lexical decision task, in which subjects indicate whether a target letter string (e.g., robin or tark) is a word or a nonword. The relatedness proportion effect is the finding that semantic priming increases in magnitude with increases in the proportion of related word-prime/word-target trials-a proportion hereafter referred to as the relatedness proportion. The relatedness proportion effect is very robust and has been obtained across a wide range of procedural variations in the lexical decision task (de Groot,

View PDFchevron_right
Semantic Memory Disorders in Alzheimer's Disease: Clues from Semantic Priming Effects
Benedicte Giffard

Current Alzheimer Research, 2005

Semantic memory deficits are a common landmark in Alzheimer's disease, but the nature of these impairments remains to be clarified. The tests used to explore this memory system are not specific and involve cognitive processes often disturbed in Alzheimer's disease. A complementary way to investigate semantic memory in neuropsychology is by using the semantic priming paradigm. Here, semantic priming refers specifically to the modification of a stimulus processing behind the presentation of a related stimulus; it is a short-lived phenomenon considered an implicit measure of semantic memory integrity. However, semantic priming studies have yielded contradictory results in Alzheimer's disease, with authors reporting normal priming, less-than-normal priming, or increased priming effects (hyperpriming). The aim of this paper is to review the literature investigating semantic priming in Alzheimer's disease, and to discuss the contradictory results in the context of current models of semantic processing. For a clear comprehension of the semantic priming patterns in this pathology, we will precise the methodology used and the characteristics of the Alzheimer's disease patients examined. Besides, the surprising hyperpriming phenomenon -often observed in Alzheimer's disease at the early stage of dementia -will also be explained in detail. These results from semantic priming represent invaluable clues to widen our knowledge and conceptions about deterioration of the semantic memory in Alzheimer's disease.

View PDFchevron_right
Explicit semantic tasks are necessary to study semantic priming effects with high rates of repetition
J. Bruno Debruille

Clinical Neurophysiology, 2012

Associative priming decreases N400 amplitude and reaction time (RT) to highly repeated target words. N400 generators in the left superior temporal gyrus and inferior parietal cortex are involved in priming effects across stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs).

View PDFchevron_right
Access into Memory Differences in Judgments and Priming for Semantic and Associative Memory
Erin M . Buchanan

Two experiments measuring the response times (RTs) of semantic and associative information processing are presented here. Experiment 1 tested the speed of judgments of associative and semantic word pairs (Maki, 2007a), and participants were able to judge associative relationships faster than semantic relationships. Interestingly, word relationship scores from database norms also predicted the RT for both semantic and associative judgments. Experiment 2 tested associative and semantic priming in a traditional lexical decision task, which also showed that associative word relationships were judged faster than semantic relationships. These findings are discussed as to how associative and semantic information is processed in memory.

View PDFchevron_right
Physiological evidence that a masked unrelated intervening item disrupts semantic priming: Implications for theories of semantic representation and retrieval models of semantic priming
D. Deacon, John Shelley-Tremblay

2004

Event-related potentials were recorded in a paradigm where an unrelated word was interposed between two related words. In one condition, the intervening item was masked and in another condition it was not. The N400 component indicated that priming of the related word was disrupted by the intervening item whether it was masked or not. The data are interpreted to be inconsistent with retrieval models of priming.

View PDFchevron_right

References (67)

  1. '""'^TrlLLlsso^^L awrence ""^to^n: d: c:; T rwl^^on^-i^ff^- - "^""^'TelLi-^" ""'f ^^^^^^^^judgments in and about l3,"664-681.^^^^- ^^^^^^^^l iXi-.
  2. Antos S. J Processing facilitation in a lexical decision task. Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human Percep tion and Performance . 1979, 5, 527-545.
  3. Ashcraft, M. H. Priming and property dominance effects in semantic memory. Memory and Cognition , 1976, 4, 490-500.
  4. Ashcraft, M. H. Property dominance and typicality effects in property statement verification. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 1978, 17, 155-164.
  5. Ashcraft, M. H. Property norms for typical and atypical items from 17 categories: A description and discussion. Memory and Cognition , 1978, 6, 227-232.
  6. Battig, W. F., and Montague, W. E. Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut Category norms. Journal of Exper imental Psychology Monoeraoh 1969, 80, (3, Pt. 2).
  7. Becker, C. A. Semantic context and word frequency effects in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human Perception and Performance , 1979, 5, 252-259, Becker, C. A., and Killion, T. H. Interaction of visual and cogni- tive effects in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human Perception and Performance , 1977, 3, 389-401. '"^''YLk:-'wney!°^^^^^^^^^^t ,^1 ^. New
  8. Clark H. H. The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy. A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Jour^I 'of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior . 1973, 12, 3 35-359.
  9. ^°^^'^e;.n;-"*' ^- A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Ps^^chologic^R eview, 1975, 82, 407-428
  10. Collins, A. M. and Quillian, M. R. Retrieval time from semantic memory. ^^Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior J 969
  11. Collins, AM., and Quillian, M. R. Facilitating retrieval from semantic memory: The effect of repeating part of an inference.
  12. XT ^-Sanders (Ed.), Attention and performance . III. London- Worth-Holland Publishing Company, 1970, pp. 304-314"^
  13. Collins A. M., and Quillian, M. R. Experiments on semantic memory and language comprehension. In L. W. Gregg (Ed.), Cognition in language and memory . New York: Wiley, 1972.
  14. Conrad, C. Cognitive economy in semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 1972, 92, 149-154.
  15. Corbett, A. T. Retrieval dynamics for rote and visual image mnemonics. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1977, 16, 233-246.
  16. Corbett, A. T. , and Wickelgren, W. A. Semantic memory retrieval: Analy- sis by speed accuracy tradeoff functions. Quarterly Journ al of Experimental Psychology , 1978, 30, 1-15.
  17. Dosher, B. A. The retrieval of sentences from memory: A speed- accuracy study. Cognitive Psychology , 1976, 8, 291-310.
  18. Estes, W. K. On the descriptive and explanatory functions of theories of memory. In L. G. Nilsson (Ed.), Perspectives-on memory research : Essays in honor of Uppsala University ' 500th anniversary . Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1979.
  19. Fischler, I. Expectancy and associative facilitation in a lexical decision task. Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human Perception and Performance , 1977, 3, 18-26. (a) Fischler, I. Semantic facilitation without association in a lexical decision task. Memory and Cognition , 1977, 5, 335-339.
  20. Fischler, I., and Goodman, G. 0. Latencv of on. 706
  21. Freedraan, J. L. , and Loftus, E. F. Retrieval of words from W- Freedman, J L. , and Loftus, E. F. Retrieval of words from well- learned sets: The effect of category size. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974, 102, 1085-1091Ĝ ellatly, A. R. H. and Gregg, V. H. The effects of negative related- " au'^Br^t and word-word comparisons and subsequent recall. British Journal of Psychology , 1975, 66, 311-323.
  22. Gellatly, A. R. H. , and Gregg, V. H. Intercategory distance and categorization times: Effects of negative-probe relatedness. ^"^^"^^^V g^b^l Learning and Verbal Behavior , 1977, 16, 505-518
  23. Glass A. L., Holyoak, K. J., and Kiger, J. I. Role of antonymy rela- tions in semantic judgments. Journal of Experimenta l Psychology ""man Learning and Memory , 1979, 5, 598-606!
  24. Glass, A. L., Holyoak, K. J., and O'Dell, C. Production frequency and the verification of quantified statements. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 1974, 13, 237-254H
  25. ayes-Roth, B. Evolution of cognitive structures and processes Psychological Review , 1977, 84, 260-278.
  26. Holyoak, K. J., and Glass, A. L. The role of contradictions and counterexamples in the rejection of false sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 1975, 14, 215-239.
  27. Homa, D., and Silver, R. Triadic decision making in lexical memory. Memory and Cognition . 1976, 4, 532-540.
  28. Jacobson, J. Z. Effects of association upon masking and reading latency. Canadian Journal of Psychology , 1973, 27, 58-69. '^^^^i^^l ^^^^-^d ecisions. P££fon5ance7T975^^H iEiB Perception York: Academic PreL/i970^N ew
  29. Johnson, R. E Recall of prose as a function of the structural • tance of linguistic units Journal nf v I ir ^^^"^^"^^^i mpor- Behavior . 1970, 9, l2-2o!' ^^^^^^-^^^^L earning and Verbal ""'^categorier' Jou'jn:r;f'v 'h 1^^°^^^" ^"^^^^^^^™ 19?! 522^f|y^-^^^^li^iiniM ind Verbal Behavior, Keppel, G., and Strand, B. Z. Free-association responses to the prxmary responses and other responses selected fromt^e Palermo- Jenkins norms In L. Postman and G. Keppel (Eds.), Norms of word association. New York: Academic Press, 1970. - King, D R. W and Anderson, J. R. Long-term memory search: An an^T'^l^'p Pr°^^^^- J^HIMl of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 1976, 15, 587^605:
  30. Kintsch W., and van Dijk, T. A. Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 1978, 85, 363-394.
  31. Kucera, H. , and Francis, W. N. Computational analysis of present-da y
  32. American English. Providence , R. I . : Broi^iTlMi^riitrP^^^K unzendorf, R. G Selected features of word meaning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 1976, 15, 633-640.
  33. Landauer, T. K. Memory without organization: Properties of a model with random storage and undirected retrieval. Cognitive Psvchol- ogy, 1975, 7, 495-531.
  34. Landauer, T. K. , and Meyer, D. E. Category size and semantic-memory retrieval. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1972, 11, 539-549.
  35. ' Lewis, C. H., and Anderson, J. R. Interference with real world know- ledge. Cognitive Psychology , 1976, 8, 311-335.
  36. Loftus, E. F. Activation of semantic memory. American Journal of Psychology , 1973, 86, 331-337.
  37. "^^^'L!;. .^>^f"igation of ^rose and its effect u£on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 19757
  38. Meyer, D. E. On the representation and retrieval of stored semantic mtormation. Cognitive Psychology . 1970, 1, 242-300.
  39. Meyer, D. E. and Schvaneveldt , R. W. Facilitation in recognizing 227-234 ^^^^^-E^P^^i""^"tal Psychology , 1971, 90, Meyer, D. E., Schvaneveldt, R. W. , and Ruddy, M. C. Loci of con- textual effects on visual word-recognition. In P. Rabbitt and S. Dornic (Eds.), Attention and performance . V. New York- Academic Press, 1974. Moeser, S. D. The role of experimental design in investigations of the fan effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human Learning and Memory . 1979, 5, 125-134.
  40. Morton, J. The interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review, 1969, 76, 165-178.
  41. Morton, J. A functional model for memory. In D. A. Norman (Ed.), Models of human memory . New York: Academic Press, 1970. Myers, J. L. Fundam entals of exDenmpni-ai • and BaconrTg??: -^XEerimental design. Boston: AUyn
  42. Myers, J. L. , and Lorch. R F Tr Tr,^- ''^'^^i'Jnce for?ar?Vt''f retrieval from lexical memory: ^^'^^Ro^es"of Inh-h'J' ^y""'""^retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitxonless spreading activation and limited-capacitv attentxon^^^j™ ^^^capacxty
  43. Nelson, T. 0. Repetition and depth of processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior . 1977, 16, 151-172N orman, D. A., and Bobrow, D. G. On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cognitive Psychology . 1975, 7, 44-64.
  44. Norman, D. A., and Bobrow, D. G. Descriptions: An intermediate stage m memory retrieval. Cognitive Psychology . 1979, 11, 107-123.
  45. Perlmuter, J., Harsip, J., and Myers, J. L. The role of semantic knowledge in retrieval of episodic long-term memories: Implica- tions for a model of retrieval. Memory and Cognition. 1976 4 361-368.
  46. Perlmutter, J., Sorce, P., and Myers, J. L. Retrieval processes in recall. Cognitive Psychology . 1976, 8, 32-63.
  47. Posner, M. I., and Snyder, C. R. R. Facilitation and inhibition in the processing of signals.
  48. In P. Rabbitt and S, Dornic (Eds.), Attention and performance . V. New York: Academic Press, 1974P ostman, L. , and Keppel, G. (Eds.) Norms of word association . New York: Academic Press, 1970.
  49. Reder, L. M. , and Anderson, J. R. A partial resolution of the paradox of interference: The role of integrating knowledge. Cognitive Psychology , in press.
  50. "''^'the ie^^;.^^^-^^^^^-^Sen,a"uc distance and i-rni^g and VerbJ 1^^, 1973 H; l^fT^V erbal
  51. Rosch, E. H. On the internal structure of percentual ,"H categories. In T E Monro i-pj i ^perceptual and semantic the Acquisition of ^'-î £^ud^. iMew York: Academic Press, 1973.
  52. ^°''^iou;na^nfT'"'"'' ^-P^-esentations of semantic categories J^HHlil of Ex£erHl^G eneral, 1975, 'm i92- Sanford, A J and Seymour, P. H. K. The influence of response compatabiUty on a semantic classification task. Acta Psychologica . 197A, 38, 405-412.
  53. Sanford, A. J., and Seymour, P. H. K. Semantic distance effects in naming superordinates . Memory and Cognition . 1974, 2, 714-720.
  54. Scarborough, D. L. , Cortese, C. , and Scarborough, H. S. Frequency and repetition effects in lexical memory. Journal of Experi^^ntll Psychology: Human Perception and Performance . 197 7, 3, 1-17.
  55. Schaeffer, B., and Wallace, R. Semantic similarity and the compari- 82? 343-346 ^I^H£Mi 2l Experimental Psychology . 1969, Schaeffer, B. , and Wallace, R. The comparison of word meanings.
  56. Jo urnal of Experimental Psychology , 1970, 86, 144-152.
  57. Schneider, W. , and Shiffrin, R. M. Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention Psychological Review , 1977, 84, 1-66.
  58. Schuberth, R. E., and Eimas, P. D. Effects of context on the clas- sification of words and nonwords. Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human Perception and Performance, 1977, 3, 27-36.
  59. Shapiro, S. I., and Palermo, D. S. Conceptual organization and class membership: Normative data for representatives of 100 cate- SOJ^ies. Psychological Monograph Supplements , 1970, 3, (11, Whole No. 43) .
  60. Shiffrin, R. M. Memory search. In D. A. Norman TEd ^M ^i . human memory. New York: Academic Pressn970 Shiffrin, R in attendin.,^and a .enefa. ^^eo^^'^^^l^^l
  61. Shulman H. G. , and Davison, T. C. B. Control properties of semantic decision task. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 1977, 16, 91-98: ^^^^"^"Ŝ mith E. E., Adams, N. , and Schorr, D. Fact retrieval and the para- dox of the expert. Cognitive Psychology. 1978, 10, A38-A64
  62. Smith E. E Rips, L. J., and Shoben, E. J. Semantic memory and psychologxcal semantics. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology £|^l£i£Bins and motivation, vol. 8. New York: A^d^iiifc-p^, Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., and Rips, L. J. Structure and process in semantic memory: A feature model for semantic decisions Psychological Review , 1974, 81, 214-241.
  63. Swinney, D. A., and Hakes, D. T. Effects of prior context upon lexical access during sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 1976, 15, 681-689T
  64. ulving, E., and Pearlstone, Z. Availability versus accessibility of information in memory for words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 1966, 5, 381-391.
  65. Tweedy, J. R. , Lapinski, R. H. , and Schvaneveldt , R. W. Semantic- context effects on word recognition: Influence of varying the proportion of items presented in an appropriate context. Memory and Cognition . 1977, 5, 84-89.
  66. Warren, R. E. Time and spread of activation in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human Learning and Memory, 1977 3 458-466.
  67. ^

Related papers

The Alliance between Semantic Memory, Priming, and Episodic Memory
Benjamin Reichelt

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2013

Categorization tasks are often used in priming studies, although the impact of categories has seldom been evaluated. We asked participants to classify natural images of animals belonging to four different categories. These were bovid, cats, rodents, and monkeys. The study consisted of three parts: learning, testing, and recognition. Participants responded faster during testing than learning, but this effect was mainly found in one category: rodents. At recognition, rodent target images resulted in a higher correct recognition rate than the other categories. These results suggest that prior semantic knowledge influences behavioral priming and priming influences formation of episodic memory.

View PDFchevron_right
The long and short of semantic priming effects in lexical decision
Steve Joordens

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 1997

described a theory of priming that predicts long-term effects for all forms of relatedness. This prediction is reconciled with previous failures to observe long-term semantic priming on the basis of 2 claims: (a) that previously used pairs share few semantic features and (b) that tasks typically used to study priming are not especially sensitive to semantic influences. The present experiments provide further support for these claims by demonstrating long-term semantic priming in the lexical-decision task when the stimuli and task are modified in a way that increases semantic involvement. However, the findings suggest that in addition to the mechanism advocated by Becker et al., a second mechanism is necessary to provide a complete account of semantic priming effects. Meyer and Schvaneveldt (1971) introduced the lexicaldecision task as a tool for learning more about the processes and mechanisms underlying semantic memory. In its original form, the task consisted of two letter strings simultaneously presented, with participants instructed to press one key if both stimuli were words, and another key if one or both of the stimuli were nonwords. Findings from that task indicated that correct "word** responses could be emitted faster if the stimuli consisted of a pair of semantically related words (e.g., sky-cloud) than if the stimuli consisted of apair of semantically unrelated words (e.g., car-cloud). This phenomenon is called semantic priming. In follow-up work, Meyer, Schvaneveldt, and Ruddy (1972) discovered two other facts about semantic priming. The first was that the priming observed in the original study was also observed with a procedure in which participants had to judge the lexical status of a single item that either was or was not preceded by a semantically related associate. The second discovery was that the magnitude of the semantic priming effect was strongly affected if items were presented between the prime and target. In their experiment, they found that the strong semantic priming effect observed when the prime and target were presented consecutively became

View PDFchevron_right
Adding new information to semantic memory: How much learning is enough to produce automatic priming?
Tom Carr

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1990

A series of experiments investigated the integration of new vocabulary words into semantic memory and the creation of new associations between preexisting, but previously unrelated, words. The ability of the newly learned vocabulary words and associations to facilitate lexical decisions when serving as primes under conditions associated with automatic processing was used to index integration. The results indicate that very extensive study is necessary for such integration to occur and that it is easier to add a new word to semantic memory than to establish a link between two formerly unconnected words already in semantic memory. The implications of these results for models of semantic memory and the episodic/semantic distinction are considered.

View PDFchevron_right
Memory and attention in lexical semantic priming: A literature review and analysis
Gwen A Frishkoff

M.S., Dept Psychology, University of Oregon, 2003

Semantic priming effects are extremely robust, with a tradition dating to the early 1970s, and have achieved an important status in cognitive psychology (Neely, 1991). In a typical version of this paradigm, subjects view a sequence of two or more words, and are asked to make a speeded response (word/nonword, semantic categorization, etc.) to the final word (the target). When the target is preceded by a word (prime) that is semantically related, response times (RT) are faster than when the prime and target words are unrelated.1 This difference in RT is referred to as the semantic priming effect. This paradigm has been an important tool for probing the nature of human memory and attention, as discussed in the present paper. Moreover, the significance of priming research reaches beyond the traditional boundaries of psycholinguistics and cognitive psychology.2 In social psychology, for instance, semantic priming has been used to examine the nature of stereotypes: responses to social categories (race, gender, age) are elicited in different contexts to determine how “automatic” they are, and under what circumstances biases can be eliminated or reversed (Bargh, 1982; Bargh & Chartrand,1999).Clearly, semantic priming has been recognized as a powerful tool for investigating not only the nature of conceptual (semantic) processing, but also the development, organization, and stability of cognitive, affective, and social functions. However, despite these widespread applications, there is still a lack of consensus about the core mechanisms of semantic priming, and about the timing and relative importance of factors such as attention, prime awareness, and the relationship between nonsemantic associations (e.g., stimulus-response mappings) and semantic priming effects. Often, researchers have claimed to isolate different cognitive functions through manipulation of one or more of these variables. However, the lack of knowledge about basic mechanisms makes it hard to evaluate these claims. What can we conclude from differences in the time course or the size of semantic priming effects in different contexts, or across different populations? What do these effects imply about the structure of semantic representations, and about the functions of memory and attention in semantic access? Do semantic disorders reflect damage or disorganization of meaning representations, or difficulties in retrieval from memory? The aim of the present paper is to address these and other issues in a systematic review of the semantic priming literature. By understanding mechanisms of single-word semantic priming, it will be possible to evaluate more critically the results from studies using this paradigm, both within cognitive psychology and across diverse clinical, social, and psycholinguistic applications. Further, understanding the locus of semantic priming effects is important for its own sake, because it has direct implications for theories about the representation and organization of meaning in memory, and for understanding the cognitive and linguistic mechanisms of semantic processing.

View PDFchevron_right
The activation of semantic memory: Effects of prime exposure, prime-target relationship, and task demands
Cheryl Frenck-Mestre

Memory & Cognition, 2008

The initial demonstration by Meyer, Schvaneveldt, and Ruddy (1972, 1974) that the identification of a word is accelerated by the prior processing of a word semantically or associatively related to it has since been the topic of numerous studies. One long-debated question concerns the amount of actual semantic processing that is involved in priming. This issue involves both the type of relationship that produces priming and the type of task best-suited to test for semantic processing (for reviews, see Forster, 2004; Hutchison, 2003; Lucas, 2000; McRae & Boisvert, 1998). The present series of experiments provides insight concerning both of these subjects.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Psychology
  • Computer Science
  • Semantic Memory
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved