Associative priming in faces: Semantic relatedness or simple co-occurrence?

Vladeanu, Matei; Lewis, Michael Bevan; Ellis, Hadyn D.

doi:10.3758/bf03193255

Cited by 15 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This shared semantic information can lead to associative and categorical priming when naming closely related individuals (Carson & Burton, 2001;Darling & Valentine, 2005;Vladeanu, Lewis, & Ellis, 2006;see Stone, 2008, for a more nuanced examination of the associative vs. categorical priming debate). Names of people within a given category can even cause proactive interference for the name of a known individual (Darling, Martin, & Macrae, 2010), and release from proactive interference occurs when new, unrelated semantic information is retrieved (Darling & Valentine, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

All my children: The roles of semantic category and phonetic similarity in the misnaming of familiar individuals

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite knowing a familiar individual (such as a daughter) well, anecdotal evidence suggests that naming errors can occur among very familiar individuals. Here, we investigate the conditions surrounding these types of errors, or misnamings, in which a person (the misnamer) incorrectly calls a familiar individual (the misnamed) by someone else's name (the named). Across 5 studies including over 1,700 participants, we investigated the prevalence of the phenomenon of misnaming, identified factors underlying why it may occur, and tested potential mechanisms. We included undergraduates and MTurk workers and asked questions of both the misnamed and the misnamer. We find that familiar individuals are often misnamed with the name of another member of the same semantic category; family members are misnamed with another family member's name and friends are misnamed with another friend's name. Phonetic similarity between names also leads to misnamings; however, the size of this effect was smaller than that of the semantic category effect. Overall, the misnaming of familiar individuals is driven by the relationship between the misnamer, misnamed, and named; phonetic similarity between the incorrect name used by the misnamer and the correct name also plays a role in misnaming.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

All my children: The roles of semantic category and phonetic similarity in the misnaming of familiar individuals

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The present study demonstrates such priming effects in a learning paradigm with pre-experimentally unfamiliar faces, and is the first that demonstrates purely associative person priming at a short prime/target SOA, which renders expectancy-based effects highly unlikely 3 . The only previous learning study on semantic priming in person recognition (Vladeanu et al, 2006) used a long prime/target SOA, which makes the application of an expectancy-based strategy likely (Neely et al, 1989). Crucially, if participants respond faster because they expect a specific upcoming target, the resulting priming effect cannot be attributed to processes that are thought to reflect the structure of semantic memory, such as automatic spreading activation or semantic feature overlap (see Hutchison, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Vladeanu, Lewis, & Ellis (2006) trained participants with pairs of simultaneously presented (computer-generated) faces that either shared or did not share semantic features (such as occupational information). In addition, faces that did not co-occur could share semantic information.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting connected: Both associative and semantic links structure semantic memory for newly learned persons

Wiese

Schweinberger

2015

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. (2015) 'Getting connected : both associative and semantic links structure semantic memory for newly learned persons.', Quarterly journal of experimental psychology., 68 (11). pp. 2131-2148.Further information on publisher's website:https://doi.org/10. 1080/17470218.2015.1008526 Publisher's copyright statement:This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor Francis Group in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology on 02/03/2015, available online at: http://www.tandfonline.com/10. 1080/17470218.2015.1008526 Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. 2 AbstractThe present study examined whether semantic memory for newly learnt people is structured by visual co-occurrence, shared semantics, or both. Participants were trained with pairs of simultaneously presented (i.e., co-occurring) pre-experimentally unfamiliar faces, which either did or did not share additionally provided semantic information (occupation, place of living etc.). Semantic information could also be shared between faces that did not cooccur. A subsequent priming experiment revealed faster responses for both co-occurrence/no shared semantics and no co-occurrence/shared semantics conditions, relative to an unrelated condition. Strikingly, priming was strongest in the co-occurrence/shared semantics condition, suggesting additive effects of these factors. Additional analysis of event-related brain potentials yielded priming in the N400 component only for combined effects of visual cooccurrence and shared semantics, with more positive amplitudes in this relative the unrelated condition. Overall, these findings suggest that both semantic relatedness and visual cooccurrence are important when novel information is integrated into person-related semantic memory.

show abstract

“…However, if featurebased composites are processed differently than real faces, how generalizable are these results? The second study we highlight (Vladeanu et al, 2006) focused on associative priming of faces. With a recognition test, they assessed the level of priming for paired faces without any semantic information versus paired faces with the same or different semantic information (e.g.…”

Section: Control Of Facial Stimuli Is Important But At What Cost?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, we did this to evaluate the kinds of composites sometimes utilized in the eyewitness memory literature. Some studies use composites first constructed from a random selection of features and then apply various levels of control (Flowe & Besemer, in press;Flowe & Cottrell, in press;Flowe & Ebbesen, 2007;Vladeanu, Lewis, & Ellis, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing Differences between Feature‐Based Facial Composites and Photos of Real Faces

Carlson

Gronlund

Weatherford

et al. 2012

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Computer-generated faces (composites) constructed by select2ing individual facial features (e.g. eyes, nose, mouth) are poorly recognized because this process contrasts with the natural holistic processing of real faces. This result suggests that there should be differences in the cognitive processing of these composites compared with photos of real faces, which would make these stimuli problematic for theories seeking to explain real face processing. We conducted five experiments to test potential conditions for moving composite processing closer to how real face photos are processed, first taking the perspective of researchers who construct composites with a random selection of available features and then taking a perspective closer to police by creating each composite to match a real face photo. Composites with randomly selected features (but configured like real faces) showed no face inversion effect and recognition memory for these composites benefited from increased encoding time, unlike real face photos. Although composites constructed to match real face photos yielded an inversion effect, they still were remembered differently than the photos. Researchers should not use feature-based composites as proxies for real face photos. We conclude with a discussion of alternative methods of constructing composites.

show abstract

Associative priming in faces: Semantic relatedness or simple co-occurrence?

Cited by 15 publications

References 21 publications

All my children: The roles of semantic category and phonetic similarity in the misnaming of familiar individuals

All my children: The roles of semantic category and phonetic similarity in the misnaming of familiar individuals

Getting connected: Both associative and semantic links structure semantic memory for newly learned persons

Processing Differences between Feature‐Based Facial Composites and Photos of Real Faces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About