It takes time to prime: Semantic priming in the ocular lexical decision task.

Abstract

Two eye-tracking experiments were conducted in which the manual response mode typically used in lexical decision tasks (LDT) was replaced with an eye-movement response through a sequence of three words. This ocular LDT combines the explicit control of task goals found in LDTs with the highly practiced ocular response used in reading text. In Experiment 1, forward saccades indicated an affirmative LD on each word in the triplet. In Experiment 2, LD responses were delayed until all three letter strings had been read. The goal of the study was to evaluate the contribution of task goals and response mode to semantic priming. Semantic priming is very robust in tasks that involve recognition of words in isolation, such as LDT, while limited during text reading as measured using eye movements. Gaze durations in both experiments showed robust semantic priming even though ocular response times were much shorter than manual LDs for the same words in the English Lexicon Project. Ex-Gaussian distribution fits revealed that the priming effect was concentrated in estimates of τ, meaning that priming was most pronounced in the slow tail of the distribution. This pattern shows differential use of the prime information, which may be more heavily recruited in cases where the LD is difficult as indicated by longer response times. Compared to the manual LD responses, ocular LDs provide a more sensitive measure of this task-related influence on word recognition as measured by the LDT.

The onset and time course of semantic priming during rapid recognition of visual words.

“…However, contrary to the results of prior literature using manual response tasks, Hoedemaker and Gordon (2014a) did not observe a priming effect on μ. Instead, the semantic priming effect was concentrated in estimates of τ, indicating that the prime effect primarily affected slower responses, with the influence of the prime increasing gradually as a function of response time.…”

“…Consistent with Hoedemaker and Gordon (2014a) we observed a robust semantic priming effect in the ocular LDT, even though average word reading times were much shorter than those typically observed using manual-response or speeded-naming tasks. In addition, the word frequency effect was stronger for ocular LDs in the current experiment than for manual LDs in the ELP (Balota et al 2008), confirming that this measure is sensitive to lexical properties.…”

“…Mean target processing times in the Hoedemaker and Gordon’s (2014a) ocular LDT showed a robust semantic priming effect. However, contrary to the results of prior literature using manual response tasks, Hoedemaker and Gordon (2014a) did not observe a priming effect on μ.…”

“…Experiment 1 uses the ocular LDT (Hoedemaker & Gordon, 2014a) in order to establish the divergence point and distributional pattern of semantic priming when the metalinguistic judgment of lexical status is indicated by movement of the eyes. Experiment 2 tests participants with the same set of words as Experiment 1 but replaces the LDT with an episodic recognition task in which each word in a trial set must be encoded in preparation for an episodic recognition probe immediately following the set.…”

Print exposure modulates the effects of repetition priming during sentence reading

“…This highlights a key advantage to our use of eye tracking in the current study as compared to the lexical-decision task used in most word-recognition priming studies. The first-pass reading-time measures that showed significant repetition-by-ART interactions ranged between 200 and 250 ms (see Table 1), whereas lexical decision times tend to range between 500 and 600 ms (e.g., Andrews & Lo, 2013; Tan & Yap, 2016; see Hoedemaker & Gordon, 2014, in press, for discussion of how the long response times in manual lexical-decision tasks affect patterns of semantic priming). The much shorter durations of eye-tracking measures compared to lexical decision latencies supports our assertion that the repetition effects we observed reflect lexical retrieval processes rather than mechanisms related to episodic memory.…”