Much of the recent masked nonword priming literature demonstrates no difference in priming between affixed and non-affixed nonword primes (e.g., maskity-MASK vs. maskond-MASK). A possible explanation for the absence of a difference is that studies have used affixed primes which were semantically uninterpretable. Therefore, this explanation indicates semantic interpretability plays a fundamental role in masked priming. To test this account, we conducted an experiment using the masked priming paradigm in the lexical decision task. We compared responses with targets which were preceded by one of four primes types: (1) interpretable affixed nonwords (e.g., maskless-MASK), (2) uninterpretable affixed nonwords (e.g., maskity-MASK), (3) non-affixed nonwords (e.g., maskond-MASK), and (4) unrelated words (e.g., tubeful-MASK). Our results follow the trend of finding no difference between affixed and non-affixed primes. Critically, however, we observed no difference in priming between uninterpretable and interpretable affixed primes. Thus, our results suggest that semantic interpretability does not influence masked priming.
In recent years, mouse tracking (designing experiments in which participants provide responses via dynamic computer mouse movements) has enjoyed increasing experience in experimental psychology. Mouse-tracking studies typically involve some form of stimulus–response (S–R) conflict, and S–R effects emerge in movement trajectories (as well as in latencies). By contrast, it is currently unclear how stimulus–stimulus (S–S) compatibility affects movements. Here, we used a spatial arrow task which allowed us to generate S–R and S–S effects within the same experiment. Experiment 1 clarified in a key press experiment that this manipulation generates clear S–S and S–R effects in latencies. More critically, Experiment 2 demonstrated that both types of conflict impact mouse trajectories with incompatibility emerging as increased ‘curvature’ of responses when compared to congruent responses. We argue that these results are best explained via the assumption of ‘continuous flow’ of information, from stimulus encoding to response preparation and finally into motor action. By contrast, the S–S effect on trajectories contradicts the notion that processing is ‘thresholded’ between stimulus encoding and response preparation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.