Dynamic adjustment of lexical processing in the lexical decision task: Cross-trial sequence effects

Abstract

There has been accumulating interest in dynamic changes in the lexical processing system across trials, which have typically been assessed via linear mixed effect modeling. In the current study, we explore the influence of previous trial lexicality and previous trial perceptual degradation on the effect of lexicality and degradation on the current trial. The results of analyses of three datasets (two previously published studies and a new study) provide evidence for a robust four-way interaction amongst previous trial lexicality and degradation and current trial lexicality and degradation effects. Discussion emphasizes how priming of relevant dimensions (clear vs. degraded or word vs. nonword) within the experimental context modulates the influence of degradation on the current trial as a function of lexicality. These results suggest that in lexical decision there are robust lingering effects of the previous stimulus and response that carry over to the current stimulus and response, and participants cannot tune task-related systems to only the present trial. Importantly, although these complex relationships are theoretically important regarding lexical and decision level processes, these complexities also reinforce Keith Rayner’s emphasis on on-line eye-tracking measures during reading as the most straightforward window into word-level processes engaged during reading.

The Generality of Dynamic Adjustments in Decision Processes across Trials and Tasks

“…Finally, a model proposed by Annis and Malmberg (2013) suggests that lapses in attentional control cause features or information from the prior stimulus to be combined with the current stimulus to inform decision making. Although their modeling work suggests that such carryover occurs for a relatively small subset of the trials (20-30%), the details of the model are similar to a descriptive account that we have offered of the consistent cross-trial pattern within the context of flex-ible lexical processor (Balota et al, 2016). Specifically, participants become tuned to the most relevant aspects of a given stimulus (e.g., the abstract dimensions of nounness and verbness) and prepare to process the same attributes on the next trial.…”

“…In contrast, when lexicality changed across trials, changes in SQ have little to no influence on RTs. Balota et al (2016) extended this work by examining the influence on nonword targets and found a very similar pattern.…”

“…Although the Turner et al and Masson et al models are useful in accounting for aspects of the current data, these models would appear to have some difficulty accommodating the fact that previous trial variables have not shown consistent interactions with other variables that influence RT on the current trial. For example, the robust word frequency effect is not consistently modulated by previous trial lexicality, frequency, or SQ (Balota et al, 2016;Masson & Kliegl, 2013). Because word frequency influences the rate of processing, lowering a response boundary should affect slower items (e.g., low frequency words) to a greater degree than faster items (high frequency words), leading to an interaction.…”

A Computational Model of Normal and Impaired Lexical Decision: Graded Semantic Effects

“…However, in the human behavioural experiments, there are often practice trials that might help alleviate the issue and help build up stable criteria rapidly. In addition, a growing number of studies have demonstrated the effects of cross-trial sequence on the human lexical decision performance (e.g., Balota, Aschenbrenner, & Yap, 2016), where stimulus degradation and lexicality in the previous trial have impacted on the responses to the current stimuli, providing evidence for trial-by-trial adjustments to decision making. However, the underlying mechanism remains to be understood.…”

Additive Effects of Item-Specific and Congruency Sequence Effects in the Vocal Stroop Task

“…Of course, if this model is correct, then one should find cross trial effects in other tasks such as lexical decision and recognition memory, which are not tasks that place a heavy load on attentional control systems, certainly not to the same degree as the Stroop task. Indeed, there has been a recent flurry of research which suggests that non-attentional tasks also produce CSE-like patterns that can be interpreted within the pathway priming framework (Malmberg and Annis, 2012; Balota et al, 2018; Aschenbrenner et al, 2017; Hubbard et al, 2017).…”