On the role of bias in dissociated phonological priming effects: A reply to Goldinger (1999)

Hamburger, Marybeth; Slowiaczek, Louisa M.

doi:10.3758/bf03212341

Cited by 25 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This effect was stronger under high-expectancy conditions, but still present under low-expectancy conditions. Although they found similar results in a reanalysis of the Hamburger and Slowiaczek (1996) data, Hamburger and Slowiaczek (1999) reported an interaction between expectancy condition and the time-order variable: Low-expectancy conditions reduce but may not abolish strategic biases. But this does not mean that initial-overlap inhibition is the result of an expectancy bias.…”

Section: Initial-overlap Inhibitionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Phonological Representations in Prelexical Speech Processing: Evidence from Form-Based Priming

Slowiaczek

McQueen

Soltano

et al. 2000

Journal of Memory and Language

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Initial-overlap Inhibitionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Phonological Representations in Prelexical Speech Processing: Evidence from Form-Based Priming

Slowiaczek

McQueen

Soltano

et al. 2000

Journal of Memory and Language

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Hence, according to Goldinger, inhibitory priming effects occur because participants "avoid anticipating more prime phonemes than targets truly contain" (p. 350). Although in a reanalysis of Hamburger and Slowiaczek's (1996) data, Hamburger and Slowiaczek (1999) also showed that biases were reduced but not eliminated by the use of a low proportion of related trial pairs, they maintained that the three-phoneme overlap inhibition reflects competition between the lexical representations of the primes and of the targets. This is because inhibition is stronger when strategic biases are weaker, thus making it unlikely that response biases cause inhibitory priming effects.…”

Section: Competition Effects In Phonological Primingmentioning

confidence: 97%

Lexical competition in phonological priming: Assessing the role of phonological match and mismatch lengths between primes and targets

Dufour

Peereman

2003

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In five experiments, we examined lexical competition effects using the phonological priming paradigm in a shadowing task. Experiments 1A and 1B replicate and extend Slowiaczek and Hamburger's (1992) observation that inhibitory effects occur when the prime and the target share the first three phonemes (e.g., /bRiz/-/bRik/) but not when they share the first two phonemes (e.g., /bREz/-/bRik/). This observation suggests that lexical competition depends on the length of the phonological match between the prime and the target. However, Experiment 2 revealed that an overlap of two phonemes is sufficient to cause an inhibitory effect provided that the primes mismatched the targets only on the last phoneme (e.g., /bOl/-/bOt/). Conversely, with a three-phoneme overlap, no inhibition was observed in Experiment 3 when the primes mismatched the targets on the last two phonemes (e.g., /bagEt/-/bagaZ/). In Experiment 4, an inhibitory effect was again observed when the primes mismatched the targets on the last phoneme but not when they mismatched the targets on the last two phonemes when the time between the offset of overlapping segments in the primes and the onset of overlapping segments in the targets was controlled for. The data thus indicate that what essentially determines prime-target competition effects in word-form priming is the number of mismatching phonemes.

show abstract

“…It seems clear that this facilitation reflects a task-specific strategy. Subjects appear to learn that target words are likely to begin with the same segments as their primes; hence, they prepare the production of those segments and, thus, repeat the targets more rapidly (Goldinger, 1999;Hamburger & Slowiaczek, 1999). The effect is not observed in the lexical decision task (Radeau, Morais, & Dewier, 1989;Slowiaczek & Hamburger, 1992;Slowiaczek & Pisoni, 1986), except when materials are presented in noise and a relativelyhigh proportion of related trials is included (Goldinger, 1998b;Goldinger, Luce, Pisoni, & Marcario, 1992).…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Bias effects in facilitatory phonological priming

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In four experiments, we examined the facilitationthat occurs when spoken-word targets rhyme with preceding spoken primes. In Experiment 1, listeners' lexical decisions were faster to words following rhyming words (e.g., ramp-LAMP) than to words following unrelated primes (e.g., pink-LAMP). No facilitation was observed for nonword targets. Targets that almost rhymed with their primes (foils; e.g., bulk-SULSH) were included in Experiment 2; facilitation for rhyming targets was severely attenuated. Experiments 3 and 4 were single-word shadowing variants of the earlier experiments. There was facilitation for both rhyming words and nonwords; the presence of foils had no significant influence on the priming effect. A major component of the facilitation in lexical decision appears to be strategic: Listeners are biased to say "yes" to targets that rhyme with their primes, unless foils discourage this strategy. The nonstrategic component of phonological facilitation may reflect speech perception processes that operate prior to lexical access.

show abstract

On the role of bias in dissociated phonological priming effects: A reply to Goldinger (1999)

Cited by 25 publications

References 9 publications

Phonological Representations in Prelexical Speech Processing: Evidence from Form-Based Priming

Phonological Representations in Prelexical Speech Processing: Evidence from Form-Based Priming

Lexical competition in phonological priming: Assessing the role of phonological match and mismatch lengths between primes and targets

Bias effects in facilitatory phonological priming

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About