Is the Masked Priming Same-Different Task a Pure Measure of Prelexical Processing?

Abstract

To study prelexical processes involved in visual word recognition a task is needed that only operates at the level of abstract letter identities. The masked priming same-different task has been purported to do this, as the same pattern of priming is shown for words and nonwords. However, studies using this task have consistently found a processing advantage for words over nonwords, indicating a lexicality effect. We investigated the locus of this word advantage. Experiment 1 used conventional visually-presented reference stimuli to test previous accounts of the lexicality effect. Results rule out the use of different strategies, or strength of representations, for words and nonwords. No interaction was shown between prime type and word type, but a consistent word advantage was found. Experiment 2 used novel auditorally-presented reference stimuli to restrict nonword matching to the sublexical level. This abolished scrambled priming for nonwords, but not words. Overall this suggests the processing advantage for words over nonwords results from activation of whole-word, lexical representations. Furthermore, the number of shared open-bigrams between primes and targets could account for scrambled priming effects. These results have important implications for models of orthographic processing and studies that have used this task to investigate prelexical processes.

Is there phonologically based priming in the same−different task? Evidence from Japanese−English bilinguals.

“…Nor did they find, in contrast to Chambers and Forster (1975), any overall effects of lexicality and/or frequency. However, their data did trend in that direction, as noted by Kelly, van Heuven, Pitchford, and Ledgeway (2013), who reported clear evidence of Chambers and Forster's pattern in their four experiments using the sequential sameϪdifferent task. As such, Kelly et al proposed that matching is often done on the basis of lexical, rather than orthographic, codes when words are used as reference and target stimuli.…”

Action and perception in literacy: A common-code for spelling and reading.

“…The modeling of form priming of the lexical-decision task is best done by models which can simulate the latter; in current models, this is a multiply constrained, nonlinear, process, and provides a continuing source of debate regarding the interpretation of many such results (Kelly et al, 2013; Kinoshita & Norris, 2009; Lupker & Davis, 2009). The remaining studies in this section extend the empirical reach of the SE-PC model by investigating effects not considered to involve lexical processes, and not, to my knowledge, currently simulated by other letter-coding models for reading.…”

Phonologically-based priming in the same-different task with L1 readers.

“…Chambers and Forster (1975), for example, using a simultaneous presentation task (i.e., the reference stimulus and the target are presented at the same time) provided evidence that allowed them to argue that matching in the same-different task is actually done simultaneously at the letter, letter cluster and word levels. Kelly, van Heuven, Pitchford, and Ledgeway (2013) have also argued that matching is at times done at the word level based on the fact that they observed more rapid matching for words than for nonwords. Proctor (1981), when discussing sequential matches (when the target follows the reference stimulus in time as was the case in the present experiment), provided evidence causing him to argue that “All sequential matches are apparently based on name codes” (p. 302) 1…”