Sizing up the associative account of repetition priming

Dennis, Ian; Carder, Hassina P.; Perfect, Timothy J.

doi:10.1007/s00426-008-0224-9

Cited by 7 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are several possible reasons for this discrepancy. First, the present experiment used pairs of pictures of objects, whereas Dennis and colleagues (Dennis & Schmidt, 2003;Dennis et al, 2010) used word pairs; thus, facilitation at the phonological level may have contributed to the residual item priming effect in their experiments, as phonological representations are more likely to be recruited during word processing relative to object processing (Damian & Bowers, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…This arrangement helped to ensure that any difference between recombined and new pairs was not the result of a change in the relative classification status of recombined objects. Evidence that altering the classification status of associations between study and test affects the magnitude of item S-R priming in associative tasks comes from two studies from Dennis and colleagues (Dennis, Carder, & Perfect, 2010;Dennis & Schmidt, 2003). These authors found that classification-congruent recombined pairs were judged faster and more accurately than classification-incongruent recombined pairs.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Study–test congruence of response levels in item stimulus–response priming

Gomes

Mayes

2020

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated stimulus-response (S-R) memory links during object priming using a binary associative size judgement paradigm. At study, participants decided which of two objects was bigger in real life and, at test, made the same or the reverse judgement. We examined the effects of response congruence on item S-R priming in the associative paradigm. In Experiment 1, a task reversal manipulation had minimal impact on RT priming when classifications were congruent for both recombined objects between study and test. Experiment 2 found that RT priming was more disrupted by classification incongruence of the selected than of the nonselected item alone, with incongruence of the nonselected object having no effect on RTs. Experiment 3, however, found that classification incongruence of both items eliminated RT priming, indicating that a significant effect of classification incongruence for the nonselected item is only evident if both items are classification-incongruent. Finally, across all experiments, we found that accuracy was more sensitive than RTs to decision/action incongruence. We interpret these findings in light of a two-stream account of S-R priming, and suggest a few extensions to account for interactions between S-R links of recombined items.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study–test congruence of response levels in item stimulus–response priming

Gomes

Mayes

2020

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reports of priming driven by the repetition of motor responses (also called stimulus-action bindings) have been published (e.g., Dobbins et al, 2004 ; Horner and Henson, 2009 ; Dennis and Perfect, 2013 ) but they are not undisputed (e.g., Logan, 1990 ; Schnyer et al, 2007 ; Dennis et al, 2010 ). One possibility as to why stimulus-action bindings played such a prominent role in our experiments is that no other explicit response was associated with the stimulus itself (e.g., a decision about some semantic property of the object).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, recent research suggests that multiple S–R bindings are coded in distinct, but possibly inter-connected, brain structures (e.g., Race et al, 2009 ; Horner and Henson, 2012 ; Henson et al, 2014 ), converging in response-production brain regions, and, ultimately, generating a motor response. If the different S–R signals do interact ( Horner and Henson, 2009 , 2011 ; Dennis et al, 2010 ; Dennis and Perfect, 2013 ), then stronger S–R bindings, such as stimulus-classification or stimulus-decision bindings, may overpower the weak influence of stimulus-action associations. On the other hand, if the only kind of S–R binding available are stimulus-action bindings (as seems to be the case at least for the dot task) their effects on behavior will be accentuated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does long-term object priming depend on the explicit detection of object identity at encoding?

Gomes

Mayes

2015

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is currently unclear whether objects have to be explicitly identified at encoding for reliable behavioral long-term object priming to occur. We conducted two experiments that investigated long-term object and non-object priming using a selective-attention encoding manipulation that reduces explicit object identification. In Experiment 1, participants either counted dots flashed within an object picture (shallow encoding) or engaged in an animacy task (deep encoding) at study, whereas, at test, they performed an object-decision task. Priming, as measured by reaction times (RTs), was observed for both types of encoding, and was of equivalent magnitude. In Experiment 2, non-object priming (faster RTs for studied relative to unstudied non-objects) was also obtained under the same selective-attention encoding manipulation as in Experiment 1, and the magnitude of the priming effect was equivalent between experiments. In contrast, we observed a linear decrement in recognition memory accuracy across conditions (deep encoding of Experiment 1 > shallow encoding Experiment 1 > shallow encoding of Experiment 2), suggesting that priming was not contaminated by explicit memory strategies. We argue that our results are more consistent with the identification/production framework than the perceptual/conceptual distinction, and we conclude that priming of pictures largely ignored at encoding can be subserved by the automatic retrieval of two types of instances: one at the motor level and another at an object-decision level.

show abstract

“…Dobbins, Schnyer, Verfaellie, and Schacter (2004) looked at priming effects while remapping response categories and remapping motor responses between a study phase and test phase in a funcfional MRI study. Using a different paradigm, Dennis et al (2010) also demonstrated that sfimuli associated with a consistent response category, as opposed to a consistent motor response, were subject to priming effects. In contrast, when the response categories were remapped in the test phase, there was no difference in RT for high-and low-primed items, suggesfing that response categories are tied to RR effects.…”

Section: Deconfounding Motor Response and Response Categorymentioning

confidence: 95%

Distinct response components indicate that binding is the primary cause of response repetition effects.

Hydock¹,

Patai²,

Sohn³

2013

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans must constantly react to their environments. In many cases, repeating a response results in performance benefits, but sometimes it results in performance costs. This dichotomy is referred to as response repetition effects (RR effects). To understand these effects, we dissociated 2 components of a response: response categories (response meaning) and motor responses (response execution). By doing so, we were able to examine 2 proposed explanations of RR effects. One, the response inhibition account, explains that RR effects are the product of an inhibitory mechanism meant to prevent accidental reexecution of responses and stimulus category repetition priming. The response inhibition account predicts additive effects of response inhibition and stimulus category priming. Another, the binding account, explains that RR effects are the product of interference from automatically retrieved memories of previous events. The binding account predicts an interactive relationship between the transitions of task, response category, and motor response; a partial repetition of trial components (i.e., the task, the response category, and the motor response) will result in interference when compared with repeating all or switching all components. In Experiments 1 and 2, response components were dissociated by using a verification procedure. In Experiment 3, the response components were dissociated by varying the motor response used to indicate each response category. We found an interactive relationship between the transitions of task, response category, and motor response, demonstrating the role of binding in RR effects. In combination with previous results, our results suggest that binding and response inhibition are separable components of RR effects.

show abstract

Sizing up the associative account of repetition priming

Cited by 7 publications

References 29 publications

Study–test congruence of response levels in item stimulus–response priming

Study–test congruence of response levels in item stimulus–response priming

Does long-term object priming depend on the explicit detection of object identity at encoding?

Distinct response components indicate that binding is the primary cause of response repetition effects.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About