Jabberwocky priming

More documents

Recommendations

Info

non-words. While in the experimental phase, participants saw the 4 experimental words,as well as 4 non-words.There was no transition from the acclimation phase to the experimental phase ofeach block. From the participant’s perspective, the practice phase was simply followedby 3 seamless blocks.After each block, participants were shown a break screen, telling them that theyhad finished block 1 or 2 of three. They were asked to press a space bar to continuewhenever they felt ready. Participants typically only paused long enough to read thebreak screen before continuing on to the next block.ResultsOnly response times of the 12 experimental words that were accurately responded to aswords within the 1000 ms. time window were analyzed. This provided a total of 425 datapoints, with a range of 13-20 data (M= 18) for each cell (mean RT = 608 ms.).By subtracting the reaction time for a given word after a congruent sentence fromthe reaction time for the same word after an incongruent sentence, we determine theextent of <strong>priming</strong>.ConstructionTable 9: Average difference in RT organized by construction and verbHighfrequencyassociateLow frequencyassociateSemanticallyrelated, nonassociateDitransitive Gave 137 Handed 135 Transferred 106Resultative Made 86 Turned -35 Transformed -7Caused-motion Put 104 Placed 82 Decorated 6Removal Took 120 Removed 128 Ousted 132111 77 59
Figure 2: Reaction times for congruent and incongruent presentations, by category oftarget with example words given for the ditransitive construction.800750700650*** *** ** 600550500450400350300High Frequency, e.g. "give"Low Frequency, e.g."handed"Semantically Related, e.g."transferred"Congruent Incongruent We find an overall main effect of primed over unprimed by-subject, (F1(1,430)= 50.9; p < .001). Considering each of the three conditions in turn, we find significant<strong>priming</strong> for strong and weak associates, F1(1, 136) = 43.5, p < .001; F1(1, 153)= 21.7;p
Page 1 and 2: Evidence for Automatic Accessing of
Page 3 and 4: will likely begin a discussion of s
Page 5 and 6: Bencini & Goldberg (2000) conducted
Page 7 and 8: despite the fact that helping with
Page 9 and 10: high frequency associates and lower
Page 11 and 12: ProcedureParticipants performed lex
Page 13 and 14: Figure 1: Basic structure for a pri
Page 15: Again, the same target words were u
Page 19 and 20: priming is well-known to be weaker
Page 21 and 22: from the lexicon. The present findi
Page 23 and 24: Goldberg, A. E. (2010). Verbs, Fram
Page 25: Yamada, Y., and Neville, H.J. 2007.

Jabberwocky priming

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?