The Use of Iambic Pentameter in the

primes were masked to limit prime duration and then followed by an unambiguous target
display in which the central pushbutton could group with the pushbutton to the right or to
the left. Participants reported whether the central pushbutton of the target display grouped
with the right or left pushbutton. Targets matched either the global or local grouping
interpretation of the preceding prime.
I used difference scores to examine the influence of the primes. I calculated the
mean global grouping advantage for each prime (see Figure 22 for primes) by subtracting
the mean RT for experimental global match targets from the mean RT for global control
targets (see Figure 23A for global targets), for each prime duration. Likewise, I
calculated the mean local advantage for each prime by subtracting the mean RT for
experimental local match targets from the mean RT for local control targets (see Figure
23B for local targets), for each prime duration. Positive scores signified an advantage
whereas negative scores signify a disadvantage.
The results of Experiment 1 revealed that there was a main effect of size scale,
global versus local. This result suggested that participants perceived global groupings to
be more salient than local groupings in both prime durations. There was no significant
main effect of prime duration 50ms versus 4000ms on reaction time. There was no
significant interaction of grouping scale and prime duration. Taken together, the results
50ms and 4000ms prime durations are consistent with the notion that global groupings
are more salient than local groupings across prime durations. This suggests an overall
global grouping advantage.
100