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

Abstract

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.

Can pupillometry distinguish accurate from inaccurate familiarity?

“…This should have effectively and considerably reduced differences in cognitive effort between contrasting categories. Although we acknowledge that RT‐matching may still be insufficient to perfectly match effort and familiarity strength between any two categories, changes in RTs remain a popular proxy for cognitive effort (Beatty, 1982; Gomes & Mayes, 2015a, 2015b, 2020; Montefinese et al., 2013; Porter et al., 2007; Võ et al., 2008).…”

Differential attentional demands on implicit and explicit associative memory in children 8-12 years old

“…Rearranged pairs maintained their key binding from encoding to test in the implicit block, such that if a participant responded yes at encoding, then the response to the rearranged trial at test would also be yes. This congruency ensures that any differences in reaction time between intact and rearranged trials is a result of condition, and not changes in the stimulus-response binding (Davis et al, 2021;Dew & Giovanello, 2010;Gomes & Mayes, 2020). The lists were counterbalanced such that each pair was assigned to each pair type condition and to both the implicit and explicit tasks across participants.…”