Influence of the constituent morpheme boundary on compound word access.

Embedded morphemes are thought to become available during the processing of multi-morphemic words, and impact access to the whole word. According to the edge-aligned embedded word activation theory Grainger & Beyersmann, (2017), embedded morphemes receive activation when the whole word can be decomposed into constituent morphemes. Thus, interfering with morphological decomposition also interferes with access to the embedded morphemes. Numerous studies have examined the effects of interfering with boundary and constituent-internal letters on morphological decomposition by comparing the effect of transposing letters at the morphemic boundary to constituent-internal letters. These studies, which report inconsistent findings, have typically used derived multi-morphemic words (e.g., cleaner), and sometimes use a control replacement letter condition that is not matched to the transposed letter conditions in terms of location. Across five experiments, we test the edge-aligned activation theory by examining the effects of replacing and transposing boundary and constituent-internal letters of compounds. Our findings suggest that replacing boundary letters interferes with access to both embedded constituents, while replacing constituent-internal letters still allows for access to the unaltered constituent, thus compensating for the interference in the altered constituent. Our findings are consistent with the edge-aligned theory with respect to letter replacement, and also imply that letter replacement must match the position of letter transposition when it is used as a control condition.

Carport and carpet: Effects of compound and pseudocompound word structures on typing.

Typing slows at the middle of the word. The exact nature of the slowdown is still disputed. Research on attentional and motoric effects in typing suggests that the slowdown is purely a function of chunking of letters in creating the motor output; this approach posits no further influence of linguistic information during output. Research from a psycholinguistic perspective does posit lexical and sublexical effects during output and explains the midword slowing as a function of slowdowns at the boundaries of sublexical units. Across four experiments, using three different typing tasks, we investigated the typing of compound (schoolteacher) and pseudocompound (carpet) words. Typing at the midword region is sensitive to the morphological structure of the word and to linguistic properties of the word and its (pseudo)constituents (e.g., linguistic information about school and teacher affects schoolteacher, and car and pet affects carpet). These findings suggest that typing compounds involves a hierarchical plan consisting of two separate motor plans for each constituent executed sequentially such that the output of letters is sensitive to the number of letters within that plan, the position of the sequence in the hierarchy (e.g., first vs. second constituent), and the morphemic structure of the to-be-typed word. Surprisingly, given that pseudocompound lexical representations should not include the pseudoconstituents and given that our tasks in the first three experiments demand full access to the lexical representation before typing, pseudocompound typing is also sensitive to the pseudoconstituent characteristics, suggesting that, during typing, the system attempts to build a compound-like structure. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Constituent processing in compound and pseudocompound words.

Theories of multimorphemic word recognition generally posit that constituent representations are involved in accessing the whole multimorphemic word. Gagné et al. (2018) found that pseudoconstituents and constituents become available when processing pseudocompound and compound masked primes (e.g., sea is activated in season and seabird). Across four experiments, we examine whether readers access the semantic information of such pseudoconstituents and constituents. Experiments 1 and 2 show that masked pseudocompound and compound primes do not influence lexical decision responses to semantic associates of their pseudoconstituents or constituents (e.g., seabird and season do not influence processing of ocean, an associate of sea). Experiments 3 and 4 show that an associate of the first constituent does not influence processing of the pseudocompound but does facilitate processing of the compound (e.g., ocean facilitates processing of seabird but not of season). While compounds have been found to be sensitive to the activation of their constituents via semantic priming (e.g., El-Bialy et al., 2013; Sandra, 1990), our findings suggest that primarily morphological, rather than semantic, activation of the constituents occurs in a masked priming paradigm. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Pupil dilation during recognition reflects the subjective recollection/familiarity experience at test rather than the level of processing at encoding.

Pupil dilation provides a window into recognition memory processes. During a recognition test, the pupil dilates more in response to a recognized studied item than to a correctly rejected new item. Various explanations for this pupil old/new effect have been offered. By a retrieval effort account, the pupil's response on a recognition test reflects the cognitive effort needed to retrieve items from memory. By a memory strength account, pupil dilation reflects the strength of the subjective memory experience elicited by items at test. To compare these accounts, we varied levels of processing (LOP) at study, then measured pupil dilation on a delayed recognition test during which participants made recollection/familiarity judgements. Pupil dilation at test was similar whether test items had been studied in a deep or shallow LOP task, but was greater when deep, shallow, and new test items were experienced as recollected rather than as familiar. This pattern supports the memory strength account rather than the retrieval effort account of pupil dilation during a recognition test. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

A reexamination of the impact of morphology on transposed character priming effects.

Using two-character Chinese word targets in a masked priming lexical-decision task, Gu and colleagues (2015) demonstrated a significant transposed character (TC) priming effect. More importantly, the priming effect was the same size for single-morpheme words and multiple-morpheme words, suggesting that TC priming effects are not influenced by morphemic structure. In Chinese, there are, however, two types of single-morpheme words, single-morpheme simple words (e.g., [similar to practice in English]) and single-morpheme complex words (e.g., [similar to carpet in English in that both components are words themselves and, hence, when presented in transposed order, may activate morphological information reflecting the individual components rather than the word itself]), a contrast that Gu et al. did not examine. In Experiment 1, we replicated Gu et al.'s finding of equal TC priming effects for their single- and multiple-morpheme words, although our priming effects were noticeably smaller than theirs. In Experiment 2, we split the single-morpheme condition in order to examine the TC priming effects for single-morpheme simple words, single-morpheme complex words and multiple-morpheme words. The results showed that the single-morpheme complex words produced the smallest priming effect, indicating that transposed morphemes can influence masked priming in Chinese; however, apparently only in an inhibitory fashion. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Pure-list production improves item recognition and sometimes also improves source memory.

Relative to reading silently, reading words aloud (a type of "production") typically enhances item recognition, even when production is manipulated between groups using pure lists. We investigated whether pure-list production also enhances memory for various item details (i.e., source memory). Screen side (Experiment 1), font size (Experiment 2), or reading versus generating from anagrams (Experiments 3-4) were the sources varied within-subject, and aloud versus silent reading was varied across groups. Thus, the manipulation of source was apparent to participants, whereas the manipulation of production was not. Traditional measures and multinomial modeling established that the aloud groups generally showed improved item recognition-and showed improved source memory when steps were taken to enhance the salience of the source manipulation (Experiment 4). In summary, reading an entire list of items improves item recognition and can also improve memory for some types of source details.

Do visible semantic primes preactivate lexical representations?

Considerable research effort has been devoted to investigating semantic priming effects, particularly, the locus of those effects. Semantically related primes might activate their target's lexical representation (through automatic spreading activation at short stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs), or through generation of words expected to follow the prime at longer SOAs). Alternately, semantically related primes might aid responding after target identification (i.e., postlexically). In contrast, masked orthographic priming effects appear to be lexical and automatic. Lexical processing of targets is facilitated by orthographically similar nonword primes and often inhibited by orthographically similar word primes (Davis & Lupker, 2006). Using the lexical-decision task (LDT), we found additivity between the facilitative effects of visible semantic primes and the facilitative effects of masked orthographically similar nonword primes at long and short SOAs, consistent with a postlexical locus of the semantic priming effects. Also consistent with this conclusion, semantic primes affected the skew of the distribution (larger effects on longer latency trials), whereas masked orthographic primes did not. In a final experiment, visible primes that were semantically related to the masked orthographic word primes did not make those primes more effective lexical inhibitors of orthographically similar targets (independent of SOA). Taken together, our findings suggest that the impact of a semantic prime is not to increase the lexical activation of related concepts. Rather, they suggest that the locus of semantic priming effects in LDTs is postlexical, in that discovering the existence of a relationship between the prime and target biases participants to make a "word" response. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Effects of lexical ambiguity on perception: A test of the label feedback hypothesis using a visual oddball paradigm.

We used a visual oddball paradigm to investigate whether a shared verbal label makes two objects belonging to different conceptual categories less perceptually distinct. In Experiment 1, the critical images shared a label as well as some perceptual features (orange, referring to the color and the fruit), and in Experiment 2, the critical images shared a label but no perceptual features (bat, referring to the animal and the sports equipment). In both experiments comparison images were similar to each of the critical images but they did not share a label. A reduced deviant-related negativity (DRN) was observed for critical images compared with comparison images in both experiments, suggesting that the critical image pairs were perceived as less distinct than comparison pairs. These results extend previous research using the visual oddball paradigm that has shown that images from the same conceptual category are perceived as more distinct when they have different labels, and provide further support for the label-feedback hypothesis (Lupyan, 2012) in which language is assumed to modulate perception online. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

The production effect in long-list recall: In no particular order?

The production effect reflects a memory advantage for words read aloud versus silently. We investigated how production influences free recall of a single long list of words. In each of 4 experiments, a production effect occurred in a mixed-list group but not across pure-list groups. When compared to the pure-list groups, the mixed-list effects typically reflected a cost to silent words rather than a benefit to aloud words. This cost persisted when participants had to perform a generation or imagery task for the silent items, ruling out a lazy reading explanation. This recall pattern challenges both distinctiveness and strength accounts, but is consistent with an item-order account. By this account, the aloud words in a mixed list disrupt the encoding of item-order information for the silent words, thus impairing silent word recall. However, item-order measures and a forced-choice order test did not provide much evidence that recall was guided by retrieval of item-order information. We discuss our pattern of results in light of another recent study of the effects of production on long-list recall. (PsycINFO Database Record

Evaluating the basis of the between-group production effect in recognition.

Reading a list of words aloud can improve recognition over silently reading them. This between-groups production effect (PE) cannot be due to relative distinctiveness because each group studies only 1 type of item. We tested 2 other possibilities. By a strategy account, a pure-aloud group might benefit from use of a production-based distinctiveness strategy at test (e.g., "Did I say this word aloud?"). By a strength account, aloud items may simply be more strongly encoded than silent items. To evaluate these accounts, we tested whether a between-group PE occurs when participants experience a salient within-group manipulation of font size, generation, or imagery at study. The answer was yes, except when imagery was the within-group task. This pattern, and aspects of participants' strategy reports, fit well with a strategy account if it is assumed that the imagery task led participants to abandon a production-based strategy. However, many of our findings were also compatible with an evaluated strength account if it is assumed that the imagery task led participants to abandon evaluating memory strength. In conjunction with recent findings, we suggest that multiple processes may contribute to the PE, and the relevant subset in play will differ as a function of study design, study task, and memory test. (PsycINFO Database Record

Assessing the costs and benefits of production in recognition.

The production effect is a memory advantage for items studied aloud over items studied silently. Although it typically is found within subjects, here we also obtained it between subjects in a recognition task-providing new evidence that production can be an effective study strategy. Our experiment, and a set of meta-analyses, also evaluated whether the within effect reflects costs to silent items and/or benefits to aloud items. Contrary to a strong distinctiveness account, we found little evidence that aloud items show an additional within-subjects benefit. Instead, silent items suffered an additional within-subjects cost. Blocking silent and aloud items eliminated this cost, suggesting that the cost was due to mixing silent and aloud items. Our discussion focuses on implications for distinctiveness and strength accounts of the production effect and on how to implement production as an encoding strategy depending on the learner's goals.

Reassessing the basis of the production effect in memory.

The production effect refers to a memory advantage for items studied aloud over items studied silently. Ozubko and MacLeod (2010) used a list-discrimination task to support a distinctiveness account of the production effect over a strength account. We report new findings in this task--including negative production effects--that better fit with an attributional account of this task. According to the attributional account, list judgments are influenced by recognition memory, knowledge of the composition of the 2 lists, and a bias to attribute non-recognized items to the 1st list. Using a recognition task to eliminate these attributional influences revealed production effects consistent with either a distinctiveness or strength account. In our discussion, we consider whether the absence of production effects on implicit-memory tests and in between-group designs provides unequivocal support for a distinctiveness account over a strength account.