Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity Modulates Semantic Negative Priming from Single Prime Words

Abstract

The present study investigated whether semantic negative priming from single prime words depends on the availability of cognitive control resources. Participants with high vs. low working memory capacity (as assessed by their performance in complex span and attentional control tasks) were instructed to either attend to or ignore a briefly presented single prime word that was followed by either a semantically related or unrelated target word on which participants made a lexical decision. Individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) mainly affected the processing of the ignored primes, but not the processing of the attended primes: While the latter produced reliable positive semantic priming for both high- and low-WMC participants, the former gave rise to reliable semantic negative priming only for high WMC participants, with low WMC participants showing the opposite positive priming effect. The present results extend previous findings in demonstrating that (a) single negative priming can reliably generalize to semantic associates of the prime words, and (b) a differential availability of cognitive control resources can reliably modulate the negative priming effect at a semantic level of representation.

Semantic Negative Priming From an Ignored Single-Prime Depends Critically on Prime-Mask Inter-Stimulus Interval and Working Memory Capacity

“…The target was preceded (600 ms before) by a single 33-ms prime word, which participants were encouraged to actively ignore on every priming trial. As in the study by Daza et al (2007), (Ortells et al, 2016b), the primes and targets were strongly closely associated words of the same semantic category on 50% of trials (related) and they belonged to different semantic categories on remaining trials (unrelated). The ignored prime word was followed either immediately or after a delay by a pattern mask, with the type of masking (immediate vs. delayed) being manipulated within participant and presented in a random way (Daza et al, 2007).…”

“…NP is generally reported when the distractor is de-selected against in defiance of a simultaneous target. Nevertheless, further research has successfully produced this effect even when the prime display contains a single ignored stimulus in an otherwise empty visual field (i.e., single NP; Milliken et al, 1998;Ortells et al, 2003Ortells et al, , 2016bFrings and Wentura, 2005;Noguera et al, 2007;Chao and Yeh, 2008).…”

“…It should be noted that most of prior work exploring the reliance of NP on control resources has employed a repetition (or identity) NP procedure in which the prime stimulus is repeated as the target on the following probe display. Recently Ortells et al (2016b) have demonstrated that individual differences in WMC also modulate NP at a semantic level of representation. In that study, two groups of participants with low and high WMC performed a lexical decision (word/non-word) on a probe central target that was preceded by a single prime word that appeared for a very short time (50 ms) on an otherwise empty visual field.…”

The Influence of Working Memory Load on Expectancy-Based Strategic Processes in the Stroop-Priming Task

“…For instance, during the Stroop or Eriksen flanker tasks, low WM capacity individuals are more prone to interference from the irrelevant attribute of the stimulus than those with high WM capacity (e.g., Kane and Engle, 2003 ; Ahmed and De Fockert, 2012 ). In a similar vein, participants with greater WM capacity are also more efficient at actively ignoring irrelevant information in negative priming tasks (e.g., Conway et al, 1999 ; Ortells et al, 2016 ). Based on these findings, Engle and Kane (2004) and Kane et al (2007) have proposed the attention control theory of WM, which states that individual differences in WM capacity mainly reflect variation in a domain-general attention control ability.…”

Expectancy-Based Strategic Processes Are Influenced by Spatial Working Memory Load and Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity

“…Studies on cognitive aging demonstrate that older adults, who usually perform worse than young adults in WM tasks (e.g., Gazzaley, 2012 ), also show a reduced ability to efficiently ignore and overcome the influence of irrelevant information in selective attention tasks (e.g., De Fockert, 2005 ; De Fockert et al, 2009 ; see Zanto and Gazzaley, 2014 , for a review). A similar impaired performance in attention tasks (e.g., Stroop; negative priming) has frequently been observed in young adults when their cognitive resources are limited due either imposed WM load (e.g., De Fockert et al, 2001 , 2010 ; Lavie and De Fockert, 2005 ; see De Fockert, 2013 , for a review), or a lower WM capacity (WMC) (e.g., Kane and Engle, 2003 ; Kane et al, 2007 ; Ortells et al, 2016 ).…”