Visual word recognition: On the reliability of repetition priming

Abstract

Repetition priming is one of the most robust phenomena in cognitive psychology, but participants vary substantially on the amount of priming that they produce. The current experiments assessed the reliability of repetition priming within individuals. The results suggest that observed differences in the size of the repetition priming effect across participants are largely reliable and result primarily from systematic processes. We conclude that the unreliability of semantic priming observed by Stolz, Besner, and Carr (2005) is specific to uncoordinated processes in semantic memory, and that this unreliability does not generalize to other processes in visual word recognition. We consider the implications of these results for theories of automatic and controlled processes that contribute to priming. Finally, we emphasize the importance of reliability for researchers who use similar paradigms to study individual and group differences in cognition.

Mental chronometry and individual differences: Modeling reliabilities and correlations of reaction time means and effect sizes

“…Stolz et al (2005) found that semantic priming effects were rather unreliable across two blocks of trials, suggesting that these effects are driven by "uncoordinated processes specific to semantic memory" (Waechter et al, 2010, p. 553). In contrast, using a closely-matched experimental protocol, Waechter et al (2010) found that repetition priming effects were noticeably more reliable than semantic priming. The higher reliability of repetition priming was taken as further support for the idea of uncoordinated semantic memory processes because it ruled out explanations of low reliability based on uncoordinated processes at presemantic (i.e., featural, lexical) levels.…”

“…Likewise, Maloney, Risko, Preston, Ansari and Fugelsang (2010) examined correlations of numerical distance effects obtained with different number formats in order to see whether these different effects assessed the same underlying numerical representations and comparison mechanisms. Similarly, Stolz, Besner and Carr (2005; see also Waechter, Stolz, & Besner, 2010) examined the intercorrelations of semantic priming effects across different RT sessions in order to assess the extent to which individual variation in these effects reflect systematic differences in semantic associations between individuals, as opposed to merely statistical noise.…”

Unconscious congruency priming from unpracticed words is modulated by prime–target semantic relatedness.

“…Further analyses of the interaction (see Table 1) showed significant facilitation priming on immediate masking trials, 38 Most of the published reports of semantic priming tend to emphasize the mean level of priming observed, ignoring the individual variability that usually underlies the mean effect. Stolz, Besner, and Carr (2005; see also Waechter, Besner, & Stolz, 2010) recently took the opposite tack to examine whether the observed individual differences in semantic priming effects are systematic or rather arise from random processes. They examined test-retest (and split-half) reliability of semantic priming by presenting two comparable sets of prime-target pairs across two consecutive trial blocks in a series of lexical decision experiments that crossed relatedness proportion (RP: .25, .50, and .75) with prime-target SOA (200 ms, 350 ms, and 850 ms).…”

Methodology of performance scoring in the d2 sustained-attention test: Cumulative-reliability functions and practical guidelines.

“…Although it is held a truism among theoreticians that long tests are more reliable than short ones, empirical findings are often at odds with this view (Ackerman & Kanfer, 2009; Stuss et al, 1996). Most often, this aspect is simply neglected (e.g., Maloney, Risko, Preston, Ansari, & Fugelsang, 2010; Stolz, Besner, & Carr, 2005; Waechter, Stolz, & Besner, 2010). Yet, our understanding of what determines reliability of cognitive processes might partly depend on CRF analysis.…”