Bias in masked word identification: Unconscious influences of repetition priming

Performance benefits and costs in forced choice perceptual identification in amnesia: Effects of prior exposure and word frequency

“…The word frequency account (Masson, 2002) of our prior findings in amnesia predicted benefits without costs in amnesia with low-frequency words and a cost/benefit pattern with high-frequency words, whereas our own view predicted benefits without costs with both high- and low-frequency words in amnesia. Contrary to both views, amnesic patients showed benefits without costs with high-frequency words and a cost/benefit pattern with low-frequency words.…”

“…Nonetheless, Masson’s (2002) argument highlights the possibility that word frequency may have played a role in the pattern of performance that we observed in amnesia. To explore this possibility in the present study, we directly manipulated the frequency of stimulus items in an FCPI task.…”

“…Masson (2002) offered an alternative account of our findings in amnesia, arguing that this alternative obviates the need to invoke explicit memory to explain the difference in performance between control and amnesic participants in FCPI. Masson noted that sensitivity effects have been observed in normal participants in an FCPI task when the stimuli are low-frequency words (e.g., Bowers, 1999; McKoon & Ratcliff, 2001; Wagenmakers, Zeelenberg, & Raaijmakers, 2000).…”

“…By contrast, the pattern that we observed in amnesia (Keane et al, 2000)—a benefit in the absence of a cost in the standard FCPI task—points to an exclusive role for sensitivity in the performance of amnesic patients. Although Masson’s (2002) word frequency account may be pertinent to the sensitivity effect in amnesia, it cannot explain the absence of a cost/benefit pattern in that group.…”

Effects of depth-of-processing and ageing on word-stem and word-fragment implicit memory tasks: Test of the lexical-processing hypothesis

“…In this model of priming, it is assumed that prior exposure to a stimulus not only facilitates 796 FAY, ISINGRINI, CLARYS subsequent stimulus processing, as claimed in the classical interpretation of the priming effect, but it also biases the process in a way that produces costs as well as benefits in performance (Masson, 2002;Ratcliff & McKoon, 1997). In their countermodel of the bias effect, Ratcliff and McKoon suggest that benefits, resulting in greater accuracy, only occur when the studied probe matches the target sufficiently.…”