1 |
How does orthographic or phonological similarity produce repetition blindness? ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
2 |
How does orthographic or phonological similarity produce repetition blindness? ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
4 |
Errors may not cue recall of corrective feedback: evidence against the mediation hypothesis of the testing effect
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
5 |
Repetition priming and repetition blindness: effects of an intervening distractor word
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
6 |
The curious case of spillover: does it tell us much about saccade timing in reading?
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
7 |
Brandname confusion: subjective and objective measures of orthographic similarity
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
8 |
Repetition blindness in priming in perceptual identification: Competitive effects of a word intervening between prime and target
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
9 |
The role of lexical expertise in reading homophones.
|
|
|
|
In: Brain and Mind Institute Researchers' Publications (2016)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
10 |
The locus of taboo context effects in picture naming
|
|
|
|
Abstract:
Speakers respond more slowly when naming pictures presented with taboo (i.e., offensive/embarrassing) than with neutral distractor words in the picture-word interference paradigm. Over four experiments, we attempted to localize the processing stage at which this effect occurs during word production and determine whether it reflects the socially offensive/embarrassing nature of the stimuli. Experiment 1 demonstrated taboo interference at early stimulus onset asynchronies of -150 ms and 0 ms although not at 150 ms. In Experiment 2, taboo distractors sharing initial phonemes with target picture names eliminated the interference effect. Using additive factors logic, Experiment 3 demonstrated that taboo interference and phonological facilitation effects do not interact, indicating that the two effects originate at different processing levels within the speech production system. In Experiment 4, interference was observed for masked taboo distractors, including those sharing initial phonemes with the target picture names, indicating that the effect cannot be attributed to a processing level involving responses in an output buffer. In two of the four experiments, the magnitude of the interference effect correlated significantly with arousal ratings of the taboo words. However, no significant correlations were found for either offensiveness or valence ratings. These findings are consistent with a locus for the taboo interference effect prior to the processing stage responsible for word form encoding. We propose a pre-lexical account in which taboo distractors capture attention at the expense of target picture processing due to their high arousal levels.
|
|
Keyword:
1314 Physiology; 2737 Physiology (medical); 3200 Psychology; 3205 Experimental and Cognitive Psychology; 3206 Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology; Distractor Frequency; English; Facilitation; Norms; Selective Attention; Semantic Interference; Stroop; Task; Time-Course; Word Interference Paradigm
|
|
URL: https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:378948
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
11 |
Masked form priming is moderated by the size of the letter-order-free orthographic neighbourhood
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
12 |
Masked priming by misspellings: Word frequency moderates the effects of SOA and prime–target similarity
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
14 |
Repetition in visual word identification: benefits and costs
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
16 |
Spelling recognition after exposure to misspellings: implications for abstractionist vs. episodic theories of orthographic representations
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
18 |
Reading and spelling in adults: Are there lexical and sub-lexical subtypes?
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
19 |
Are word representations abstract or instance-based? Effects of spelling inconsistency in orthographic learning
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
20 |
T1 difficulty affects the AB: Manipulating T1 word frequency and T1 orthographic neighbor frequency
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|