Masked Repetition Priming of Words and Nonwords: Evidence for … · 2005-02-18 · ough et al., 1977). If repetition priming is due To arrange priming conditions that would to facilitated

JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE 37, 268–293 (1997)ARTICLE NO. ML962507

Masked Repetition Priming of Words and Nonwords:Evidence for a Nonlexical Basis for Priming

Glen E. Bodner and Michael E. J. Masson

University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada

Lexical decisions for low- and high-frequency words are equally facilitated by masked repeti-tion priming, whereas nonwords typically show no effect of such priming. This pattern of resultshas been used to argue against an episodic account of masked priming and in favor of a lexicalaccount in which the prime opens the lexical entry of the upcoming target. We propose that anepisodic account can be compatible with additive effects of masked priming and word frequency.We also demonstrate that masked priming of nonwords can be reliably produced, indicating thatprimes operate at a nonlexical level, primarily to facilitate orthographic encoding. The processingfluency created by a masked prime can work against correct classification of nonwords in alexical decision task, leading either to no effect of priming or to an interference effect whensubjects depend heavily on familiarity as a basis for lexical decisions. q 1997 Academic Press

Two classes of word identification theories Lexical accounts of word identification canare fundamentally divided by a debate regard- most easily accommodate repetition priminging the issue of whether word identification effects by assuming that presentation of ainvolves access of a stable, abstract, lexical word results in contact with the lexical repre-entry corresponding to a word in a mental sentation for that item and in so doing leaveslexicon, or whether it involves retrieval of epi- that representation in an excited state for somesodic memory traces created during previous period of time (e.g., Monsell, 1985; Morton,encounters with the word. The development 1969). If the item is experienced again, beforeof these two theoretical frameworks has been activation of the representation has decayed,shaped in part by demonstrations of repetition responses to that item are facilitated. By thispriming, whereby word identification is facili- account, repetition priming is a consequencetated by a recent previous encounter with that of having made recent contact with a word’sword (e.g., Forbach, Stanners, & Hochhaus, lexical representation.1974; Kirsner & Smith, 1974; Scarborough, Jacoby (1983; Jacoby & Dallas, 1981) putCortese, & Scarborough, 1977). forward an episodic account of word identifi-

cation and repetition priming. On this account,This research was supported by the Natural Sciences skilled word identification is based on re-

and Engineering Research Council of Canada through a trieval of prior episodes involving the targetpostgraduate scholarship to Glen Bodner and a research

word, cued by the word’s orthographic pat-grant to Michael Masson. We thank Carrie Hicks, Barrytern. In repetition priming, the encoding epi-Adams, and Graham Brown for assistance with this re-

search, and Ken Forster and two anonymous reviewers sode in which a word is first presented (as thefor their comments on an earlier version of this paper. We prime) should be particularly salient when thatare grateful to Bruce Whittlesea for helpful discussions

word is later presented as a target becauseregarding this research. A preliminary report of this re-there is strong temporal and contextual over-search was presented at the third annual Cognitive Science

Association for Interdisciplinary Learning conference, lap between the prime and target experiencesHood River, Oregon, 1996. (Jacoby, 1983).

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Mi- A number of lexical accounts of repetitionchael Masson, Department of Psychology, University ofpriming acknowledge an episodic componentVictoria, P.O. Box 3050, Victoria, British Columbia V8W

3P5, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]. in producing the effect (e.g., Feustel, Sala-

2680749-596X/97 $25.00Copyright q 1997 by Academic PressAll rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

AID JML 2507 / a00c$$$$61 07-23-97 14:02:37 jmla AP: JML

269MASKED REPETITION PRIMING

soo, & Shiffrin, 1983; Forster & Davis, 1984; word frequency should be a stable characteris-tic of the lexicon and unaffected by a singleHumphreys, Besner, & Quinlan, 1988; Sala-

soo, Shiffrin, & Feustel, 1985). This acknowl- exposure to a word, Monsell (1985) has ar-gued this effect can be explained within Mor-edgment was prompted by a series of empiri-

cal findings inconsistent with a purely lexical ton’s (1969) logogen theory. Monsell sug-gested that identification performance is aaccount. First, a strict abstractionist position is

challenged by studies that fail to demonstrate negatively accelerated function of the numberof recent encounters with a word. High-fre-robust cross-modal priming (e.g., Scarbor-

ough, Gerard, & Cortese, 1979), although quency words would have more recent en-counters than low-frequency words, so the ad-Morton (1979) proposed a revision to his lo-

gogen theory to accommodate modality-spe- ditional encounter comprising the primingevent would have less impact for high-fre-cific effects.

Second, lexical accounts assume that the quency words. Jacoby (1993) pointed out,however, that it is surprising that a single ex-effect of a prime on a word’s representation

decays over time, otherwise the concept of a posure to a low-frequency word can go so fartoward closing the performance gap betweenstable mental lexicon is lost. Scarborough et

al. (1977) and Jacoby (1983; Jacoby & Dallas, such a word and high-frequency words thatbenefit from the effects of a great many more1981) have shown that a single presentation

of a prime can have a detectable effect on presentations.The frequency attenuation effect has moreperformance over intervening items or even

over one or more days. These results show serious implications, however, for lexicalsearch theories, which assume that frequencythat lexical accounts must at least assume sur-

prisingly long-lasting effects of a single expo- is a stable, organizational property of the lexi-con (Becker, 1979; Forster, 1976; Stanners &sure to a word.

Third, like other forms of episodic memory, Forbach, 1973). According to these theories,entries for high-frequency words are searchedrepetition priming is sensitive to manipula-

tions of context. Jacoby (1983) showed that earlier than entries for low-frequency words.Priming would affect the speed with which anpriming increased with an increase in the pro-

portion of studied words appearing in the test entry is accessed once it has been located inthe search, but not the search process itself.list, a result not predicted by automatic lexical

activation. Moreover, repetition priming is re- Thus, the frequency effect should not be mod-ulated by repetition priming.duced or eliminated if the test words were

originally read as part of a text rather than in The frequency attenuation effect is consis-tent with the episodic account in that episodicisolation (Levy & Kirsner, 1989; MacLeod,

1989; Oliphant, 1983). Although troubling for traces of low-frequency word primes may bemore distinctive than those of high-frequencya strict lexical account, these results could be

explained from a nonlexical, episodic account word primes. Improved distinctiveness mightmake an episode easier, and hence faster, tothat allows variable encoding and retrieval of

episodic traces corresponding to specific expe- retrieve. Given that word identification is as-sumed by the episodic account to be basedriences (e.g., Jacoby, 1983; Whittlesea & Dor-

ken, 1993). on the recruitment of relevant prior episodes,adding one more episode for a low-frequencyAn additional problem for certain lexical

accounts of priming is the frequency attenua- word that is captured by relatively few epi-sodes should have a larger impact than onetion effect: the observation that low-frequency

words benefit more from repetition priming more episode for a high-frequency word thatis already part of a great many episodes.than high-frequency words (e.g., Duchek &

Neely, 1989; Forster & Davis, 1984; Jacoby & A final problem for the lexical account isthe existence of long-term repetition primingDallas, 1981; Norris, 1984; Rajaram & Neely,

1992; Scarborough et al., 1977). Although effects for nonwords. Although some lexical


270 BODNER AND MASSON

decision studies have not found long-term non- try is already open. No interaction with wordfrequency is expected, however, because theword priming effects (e.g., Forbach et al.,

1974; Rajaram & Neely, 1992), others have frequency effect arises from the time taken toget to the entry during the sequential search(e.g., Besner & Swan, 1982; Kirsner & Smith,

1974; McKone, 1995; Norris, 1984; Scarbor- of the lexicon.To arrange priming conditions that wouldough et al., 1977). If repetition priming is due

to facilitated use of a lexical entry, nonwords reveal a lexical repetition priming effect, freeof the influence of episodic memory, Forstershould not show priming effects because they

do not have lexical entries. Monsell (1985) has and Davis (1984) used a masked priming para-digm modeled after the masked word identi-attributed repetition priming of nonwords to

conditions that provide subjects time and in- fication paradigm developed by Evett andHumphreys (1981). In the masked primingcentive to learn the nonwords. This learning

would either set up the equivalent of a new procedure, a briefly presented (60-ms) lower-case prime is preceded by a pattern mask oflexical entry (Feustel et al., 1983) or a tempo-

rary lexical entry (Rajaram & Neely, 1992) or some kind, and immediately followed by thetarget stimulus in uppercase letters which alsowould allow the subject to associate a task-

specific response with the learned nonword serves as a postmask for the prime. In theForster and Davis experiments, subjects then(Monsell, 1985). The episodic account, on the

other hand, predicts nonword repetition prim- made a lexical decision to the target stimulus.Masking, in combination with brief presen-ing because presentation of nonwords leads to

the construction of episodic traces, just as tation, makes the prime difficult to identify,and critically, according to Forster and Daviswould happen with any novel stimulus. On this

account, even conditions that would not permit (1984), ‘‘minimizes’’ any episodic influenceof the prime. Moreover, the priming effectsthe learning discussed by Monsell potentially

will lead to repetition priming of nonwords. observed in this paradigm are said to occurat a processing level beyond perception forTaken together, the aspects of repetition

priming reviewed here pose a challenge to several reasons. First, perceptual overlap be-tween primes and targets is low since thesethe view that repetition priming results from

temporary activation of a stable lexical entry. items are presented in different case. Second,if priming effects are perceptual, one wouldForster and Davis (1984) were particularly

concerned, however, with the implications of expect equal priming for words and nonwords,whereas the results show that words producethe frequency attenuation effect for lexical

search models. That effect raises serious more priming than nonwords. Third, maskedpriming persists over unrelated interveningdoubts about the assumption that lexical en-

tries are searched in a consistent order. To items (e.g., Forster & Davis, 1984, Experi-ment 5). Thus, Forster and Davis argued thathandle this problem, Forster and Davis sug-

gested that repetition priming effects obtained masked repetition priming effects observed inlexical decision must reflect facilitated lexicalwith clearly perceived prime words are the

result of episodic memory traces formed by access.Using the masked repetition priming para-the priming event. They further reasoned that

lexically based repetition priming could be digm, Forster and Davis (1984) examined twoof the repetition priming results that are prob-demonstrated by presenting primes in a man-

ner that prevented the establishment of epi- lematic for a lexically based account of repeti-tion priming: the frequency attenuation effectsodic traces of the priming event.

Forster and Davis (1984) proposed that lex- and previous reports of nonword priming.Consistent with their lexical account, Forsterically based repetition priming is a result of

the prime word leaving its lexical entry open. and Davis found additivity between frequencyand priming using the masked prime para-When an identical target is presented, lexical

access is speeded because the appropriate en- digm. In fact, to date all masked repetition



priming studies manipulating frequency have priming episode of the first occurrence ofGREEN to be ‘‘brought forward’’ to partici-failed to reveal an interaction of these vari-

ables (Ferrand, Grainger, & Segui, 1994; For- pate in the identification of the interpolatedword. With an interpolated word presented inster & Davis, 1984; Forster, Davis, Schok-

necht, & Carter, 1987; Humphreys et al., a familiar format, less use was made of thepriming episode in processing the interpolated1988; Humphreys, Evett, Quinlan, & Besner,

1987; Rajaram & Neely, 1992; Segui & word, so a smaller subsequent repetition prim-ing effect was found on the target word.Grainger, 1990; Sereno, 1991). Forster and

Davis also failed to find evidence for nonword The Whittlesea and Jacoby (1990) result isimportant in the current context because itpriming, consistent with their lexical account.

Although the absence of masked nonword shows that the contribution of an earlier pro-cessing episode to stimulus encoding can vary,priming has been replicated (Forster, 1987;

Forster et al., 1987; Rajaram & Neely, 1992, depending on the demands of the current en-coding situation. We sought to take advantagefor nonstudied nonwords), reliable masked

nonword priming has since been demonstrated of this observation by varying the perceptualquality and the discriminability of word and(Forster, 1985, Experiment 1; Masson &

Isaak, 1991; Sereno, 1991). nonword targets in a lexical decision task.When the lexical decision task is made moreThe lexical account of masked repetition

priming developed by Forster and Davis difficult by either of these manipulations,more use should be made of the priming epi-(1984) rests on the assumption that the forma-

tion of an episodic memory trace of the prime sodes. Under these circumstances, the fre-quency attenuation effect and priming of non-event is precluded. It is possible, however,

that episodic traces of masked primes are words might be observed just as in experi-ments that examined long-term repetitionformed, but do not achieve their full potential

for enhancing target identification under the priming with clearly presented prime events.Aside from the degree to which an episodi-conditions tested by Forster and Davis. If so, it

might be possible to create situations in which cally represented priming event influencesclassification of a target, another factor is pre-masked priming episodes have a greater in-

fluence on target processing, thereby produc- sumed to influence repetition priming of non-words in the lexical decision task. The pro-ing effects inconsistent with the lexical ac-

count (i.e., frequency attenuation and priming cessing efficiency provided by masked primescan lead subjects to experience a feeling ofof nonwords).

To see how such a situation could be con- familiarity for the target, which is sometimesmisattributed to prior exposure (Jacoby &structed, consider that decreasing target dis-

criminability through degradation increases Whitehouse, 1989), repetition or clarity(Whittlesea, Jacoby, & Girard, 1990), or famepriming effects (e.g., Becker & Killion, 1977;

Besner & Swan, 1982; Borowsky & Besner, (Jacoby, Woloshyn, & Kelley, 1989). In thelexical decision task, a conflict can arise be-1991, 1993; den Heyer & Benson, 1988;

Meyer, Schvaneveldt, & Ruddy, 1975; Norris, tween (1) the sense of familiarity that arisesfrom improved processing efficiency, or flu-1984). Moreover, Whittlesea and Jacoby

(1990) found that responses to a target showed ency, created by repetition priming and (2)the requirement to make a NO response togreater repetition priming when an interpo-

lated word was visually unfamiliar (e.g., nonwords (Feustel et al., 1983; Kirsner &Speelman, 1996). Further support for the ideaGREEN-pLaNt-GREEN), compared to a con-

dition where it was visually familiar (e.g., that fluent processing can interfere with cor-rect classification of nonwords comes from theGREEN-PLANT-GREEN). Whittlesea and

Jacoby argued that presenting the interpolated finding that as the degree of similarity betweena nonword and known words (as measured byword in an unfamiliar format made processing

of this stimulus more difficult, forcing the number of neighbors) increases, there is an



increase in lexical decision response time and Forster and Davis (1984, Experiment 1) wascarried out. In Experiment 1, we tested low-error rate for nonwords (Forster & Shen,

1996). We suggest that, depending on the bal- and high-frequency words with characteristicssimilar to those used by Forster and Davis inance between the amount of processing flu-

ency generated by repetition priming of a non- a lexical decision task. Targets (e.g., BRAIN)were presented in the context of masked repe-word and the degree to which subjects rely on

a subjective feeling of fluent processing or tition or unrelated primes (e.g., brain vs. oc-familiarity in making a lexical decision, non- cur). We expected to replicate two key find-word priming may or may not be observed. ings taken by Forster and Davis as support forIn particular, when subjects rely partly on a the lexical account of masked priming: (1)feeling of familiarity and partly on an analysis equivalent priming for low- and high-fre-of the target’s features in making word/non- quency words and (2) no priming for non-word judgments, little or no effect of repeti- words. Although these results can be ex-tion priming of nonwords is expected. In this plained by the lexical or episodic accounts, itcase, the reduction in processing time pro- was important to establish that our materialsduced by a repetition prime is counteracted and procedures produce the key results of For-by the requirement to discount the experi- ster and Davis.enced sense of familiarity to make a NO re-

Methodsponse. When subjects are less able to rely onfamiliarity as a basis for responding, as when Subjects. Twenty-four undergraduate stu-targets are presented in an unfamiliar format dents at the University of Victoria participatedor when word/nonword discriminability is dif- for extra credit in an introductory psychologyficult, a robust priming effect for nonwords is course. No subject took part in more than onepredicted. Under these circumstances, targets of the experiments reported here. The medianare analyzed more fully and the feeling of age of the subjects in each of these experi-familiarity plays only a small role in the classi- ments was between 18 and 19 years.fication decision. Therefore, little if any time Materials and design. The targets were 48is spent discounting that sense of familiarity high-frequency words (40–60 occurrences perin making a NO response to a nonword target, million; Kucera & Francis, 1967) such asleaving a clear path for processing efficiency TREE and SMILE, 48 low-frequency wordsdue to repetition priming to show itself. (1–2 occurrences per million) such as AJAR

In the experiments reported here, we began and USHER, and 96 pronounceable nonwordswith a replication of Forster and Davis (1984, such as BREEM and FEAP, each of 4–6 let-Experiment 1) in which masked repetition ters in length. Twelve additional practice tar-priming of clearly presented targets yielded no gets, in equivalent proportions to the criticalfrequency attenuation effect and no nonword items, were also selected. These item charac-priming. In two subsequent experiments, we teristics and word–nonword ratios were thepresented targets in an unfamiliar format or same as those used in Forster & Davis (1984).targets for which word/nonword discrimina- An additional set of items was selected totions were quite difficult. These experiments serve as unrelated primes. Forster and Davistest predictions about the varying utility of did not specify whether their unrelated primespriming episodes. In a final experiment, we were of the same frequency as the targets withtest a prediction regarding the trade-off be- which they were paired. In our experiments,tween processing efficiency and discounting though, each target was paired with a unre-the sense of familiarity to correctly classify a lated prime of the same lexical class, length,nonword target that follows a repetition prime. and frequency class (for words) as the target

EXPERIMENT 1: REPLICATION (e.g., the unrelated nonword prime sude waspaired with the nonword target FEAP). Unre-Before investigating the effects of manipu-

lating target discriminability, a replication of lated primes shared no more than two, and



usually shared zero, letters with their target to press the NO key. Following the Forsterand Davis (1984) procedure, feedback wasand shared no letters in the same position.

Primes were presented in lowercase letters and given on trials where the subject took too longto make a response (‘‘Error: Too Slow!’’ fortargets were presented in uppercase letters.

The targets and unrelated primes appear in the 1 s, for responses longer than 2500 ms) ormade an incorrect response (‘‘Error: IncorrectAppendix.

The critical words were divided into two Response’’ for 1 s); the computer also beepedwhen either event occurred. The next trial be-lists of 24 low-frequency word targets and two

lists of 24 high-frequency words. Half of the gan automatically 500 ms after the response.Rest breaks were provided every 32 criticalnonwords were designated as critical items

and were used to form two lists of 24 targets. trials. Subjects first were presented the 12practice trials in random order, followed by aOne list of each type was assigned to the repe-

tition prime condition and the other to the un- random ordering of the 144 critical and 48filler trials. At the end of the session, subjectsrelated prime condition. Assignment of these

lists to prime conditions was counterbalanced were asked what was seen on each trial, justbefore the target appeared. The goal of thisover subjects so that each list was tested

equally often in each priming condition. For question was to assess the perceptibility of theprimes.the remaining 48 nonword targets, designated

as filler items, half were always tested with aResultsrepetition prime and half were always tested

with an unrelated prime. In all experiments, the following conven-tions were followed. Trials with reaction timesProcedure. Subjects were tested individu-

ally in a single session lasting about 15 min. shorter than 300 ms or longer than 3500 mswere deleted. This trimming resulted in a lossItems were presented in black 12-point courier

font against a white background on a mono- of 19 of the 19,968 trials (0.1%) across thefour experiments, well within the 0.5% recom-chrome monitor connected to a Macintosh II

computer. Stimulus presentation was synchro- mended by Ulrich and Miller (1994). Meanreaction time in each condition was computednized with the raster scan cycle of the monitor

to permit exact timing of displays in incre- for each subject by averaging over items, andfor each item by averaging over subjects. Sep-ments of 15 ms. Subjects were told that each

trial would consist of several briefly presented arate analyses of variance (ANOVA) withsubjects as the random variable (F1) and withitems and that the last item was the target. As

in Forster and Davis (1984), no mention was items as the random variable (F2) were per-formed on the reaction times and error ratesmade of the number or nature of items to be

presented on a trial. Subjects were instructed for words and nonwords. The type I error ratewas set at .05.to decide whether the target was a real English

word. The informal postexperiment probe ques-tion regarding the subjects’ awareness of theEach trial consisted of a mask, which was

a row of uppercase Xs matched for length with primes revealed that 42% of the subjects inExperiment 1 knew that at least ‘‘something’’the prime and target, presented for 500 ms,

followed immediately by the prime in lower- other than a row of Xs was being flashed priorto onset of the target. Few subjects, however,case letters for 60 ms, followed immediately

by the target in uppercase letters. The target were explicitly able to identify any of theprimes, consistent with Forster and Davis’sremained on the screen until a response was

made. Subjects responded by pressing one of (1984) test of prime identifiability.Word targets. Table 1 shows the mean oftwo labeled keys on a key pad (YES if the

target spelled a word or NO if the target did subjects’ mean reaction times and error rates,for each of the word and nonword conditionsnot spell a word). Subjects used their right

hand to press the YES key and their left hand and their corresponding priming effects. Data



TABLE 1

MEAN REACTION TIME (RT, IN MS) AND ERROR PERCENTAGE (%E) FROM FORSTER AND DAVIS

(1984, EXPERIMENT 1) AND IN EXPERIMENT 1

Repetition prime Unrelated prime Priming effect

Experiment and target RT %E RT %E RT %E

Forster & Davis (1984, Expt 1)High-freq. word 550 2.9 595 4.5 45 1.6Low-freq. word 646 15.3 684 21.2 38 5.9Nonword 687 6.9 679 6.0 08 00.9

Experiment 1High-freq. word 603 (83) 0.2 (0.9) 632 (84) 0.7 (1.6) 29 (48) 0.5 (1.9)Low-freq. word 778 (120) 15.6 (9.6) 823 (120) 16.8 (9.5) 45 (74) 1.2 (10.0)Nonword 882 (164) 10.1 (7.3) 875 (139) 8.0 (7.9) 07 (89) 02.1 (6.7)

Note. Standard deviations for Experiment 1 are in parentheses. Forster and Davis (1984) did not report standarddeviations.

for word and nonword targets were analyzed half the magnitude of the effect for low-fre-quency words. Using this benchmark, we esti-separately. A two-factor repeated-measures

ANOVA with word frequency (low vs high) mated the power to detect an interaction ofword frequency and priming in Experiment 1and priming (repetition vs unrelated) was used

to analyze reaction time data for word targets. in which the priming effect for high-frequencywords would be half the size of the effect forRepetition primes were found to produce reli-

ably shorter reaction times than unrelated low-frequency words. The estimated powervalues were .29 for the subjects analysis andprimes (690 ms vs 727 ms), F1(1,23) Å 13.63,

MSe Å 2,413, F2(1,94) Å 11.47, MSe Å 4,637. .26 for the items analysis. Thus, Experiment1 had relatively little chance of producing aThis priming effect of 37 ms is quite close to

the 42-ms effect found by Forster and Davis reliable interaction.A similar ANOVA was applied to error(1984). In addition, reaction time for high-

frequency words was less than for low-fre- rates for word targets. The only reliable effectin this analysis was the effect of frequency,quency words (618 ms vs 800 ms), F1(1,23)

Å 200.32, MSe Å 3,991, F2(1,94) Å 113.46, with far more errors occurring for low-fre-quency targets (16.2%) than for high-fre-MSe Å 16,998. This frequency effect is twice

as large as the effect reported by Forster and quency targets (0.5%), F1(1,23) Å 97.59, MSe

Å 50.27, F2(1,94) Å 50.27, MSe Å 238.Davis, and seems to be due, at least in part,to slower responding to low-frequency targets Nonword targets. Reaction times and error

rates for nonword targets were analyzed inin this experiment.Despite a trend toward more priming for separate ANOVAs with prime (repetition vs

unrelated) as a repeated measures factor. Nei-low-frequency words (45 ms) than for high-frequency words (29 ms), the interaction be- ther analysis found a reliable effect of prim-

ing, Fsõ 1 for reaction time, F1(1,23) Å 2.31,tween frequency and priming and was not sig-nificant, Fs õ 1.06. The power of Experiment MSe Å 22.56, p Å .14 and F2(1,47) Å 1.84,

MSe Å 56.87, p Å .18 for error rates. The1 to detect an interaction between frequencyand priming was estimated by using as a power of Experiment 1 to detect a reaction

time priming effect for nonword targets of thebenchmark effect size the interaction effectfound by Forster and Davis (1984, Experiment same magnitude as that found for words was

estimated to be .54 and .82 in the subject and3) for unmasked primes. In that study, thepriming effect for high-frequency words was item analyses, respectively.



Discussion for example, priming episodes for low-fre-quency words are particularly salient (e.g., Ja-

Experiment 1 successfully replicated thecoby & Dallas, 1981). In addition, low-fre-

features of the Forster and Davis (1984, Ex-quency words have more room to show prim-

periment 1) demonstration of masked repeti-ing than high-frequency words because the

tion priming in lexical decision. First, the ben-latter may be closer to an asymptotic level

efit of a repetition prime was equally strongof performance even without priming (Logan,

for low- and high-frequency words. Second,1988). Another expected effect of the case-

nonwords failed to show an effect of priming.alternation manipulation was to increase the

Although these results are consistent withpriming effect, as observed with degraded tar-

those of Forster and Davis, our Experiment 1gets in studies of long-term repetition and as-

did not have substantial power to detect eithersociative priming (e.g., Becker & Killion,

an interaction between word frequency and1977; Besner & Swan, 1982; Borowsky &

priming or an effect (at least by subjects) ofBesner, 1991, 1993; den Heyer & Benson,

priming among nonwords. It was not possible1988; Meyer et al., 1975; Norris, 1984). With

for us to determine the power of the Forstera larger priming effect in play, power to detect

and Davis experiment for either of these ef-an interaction with word frequency might be

fects. We note, however, that Forster andenhanced.

Davis used only a slightly larger sample sizeFor nonword targets, our prediction was

(28 instead of 24) and therefore, it is unlikelythat they would show a priming effect when

that they had substantially more power thantargets are case-alternated. When a lexical de-

we did to detect a frequency attenuation effect,cision response to a target can be made in

or perhaps even a nonword priming effect.part on the basis of an immediate sense of

This is problematic because the lexical ac-familiarity, and when processing of the target

count of repetition priming put forward byis relatively easy, the fluency afforded a non-

Forster and Davis is grounded on these twoword target by a repetition prime would misdi-

null effects. We further address concernsrect subjects toward an incorrect response.

about the power to detect the frequency byAdditional processing time would be incurred

prime interaction and priming among non-to avoid an error, leading to a loss of the po-

words in the subsequent experiments. At thistential benefit of the prime (e.g., Feustel et al.,

point, the important conclusion to draw from1983). Making target processing more diffi-

Experiment 1 is that our materials and proce-cult by presenting it in an unfamiliar form was

dure produce results comparable to those re-expected to reduce subjects’ dependence on

ported by Forster and Davis.an immediate sense of familiarity in classify-ing the target. At the same time, however,

EXPERIMENT 2: CASE-ALTERNATEDthe benefit of information derived from the

TARGETSrepetition prime would still enable more effi-cient processing of the target, relative to theThe objective of Experiment 2 was to assess

masked repetition priming of targets presented unrelated prime condition. The net resultwould be more efficient processing of non-in an unfamiliar format using case alternation

(e.g., lETtEr). The episodic account of prim- words in the repetition condition, leading toshorter response latencies. These predictionsing suggests that this manipulation would

force subjects to rely more heavily on infor- were tested in Experiment 2a using targets thatwere presented in case-alternated format, asmation available from the prime to make their

response (Whittlesea & Jacoby, 1990). Bring- used by Whittlesea and Jacoby (1990). Other-wise, the methodology was the same as ining forward the prime episode to aid target

classification might allow low-frequency tar- Experiment 1.One potential concern that arises from thegets to show more benefit from a repetition

prime than would high-frequency targets, if, use of case-alternated targets is that the lower-



case letters of targets completely overlap the came lamot-pHoNe). Thus, repetition and un-related primes were always nonwords in Ex-corresponding letters of their repetition primes

(e.g., the ‘‘w’’ and ‘‘r’’ in the prime-target periment 2b. The replacement procedure didnot guarantee that the primes were pronounce-pair word-wOrD overlap perfectly). Since

there is no mask between primes and targets, it able, but note that perceptual overlap, not pro-nounceability, is the explanation we sought tois possible to argue that any increased priming

effects for word targets and any nonword rule out in Experiment 2b.priming observed in Experiment 2a, relative

Resultsto Experiment 1, might be the result of thisphysical match. To address this concern, in In the post-experiment interview, only 25%

of the subjects in Experiment 2a, and 8% ofExperiment 2b the non-overlapping letters ofrepetition primes (and letters in the corre- subjects in Experiment 2b reported being

aware of the presentation of primes. Most ofsponding positions of the unrelated primes)were replaced with different letters (e.g., those subjects reported having very little in-

formation about the nature of the primes, evenword-wOrD would become wirk-wOrD). Ifthe physical overlap produces priming, then though they were aware of their presence.

Analyses of reaction time and error data forthe same pattern of priming effects should befound in Experiments 2a and 2b. If priming word and nonword targets were conducted as

in Experiment 1. Means of subjects’ mean re-effects are not observed in Experiment 2b,then the physical overlap explanation can be action times and error rates for all conditions

as well as for priming effects in Experimentsruled out.2a and 2b appear in Table 2. Relative to Ex-

Method periment 1, reaction times were substantiallylonger for words and nonwords in ExperimentSubjects. Twenty-four subjects from the

same source used in Experiment 1 were tested 2, indicating that the case-alternated targetswere more difficult to classify than their up-in Experiment 2a and 24 more were tested in

Experiment 2b. percase counterparts.Word targets. First we consider the resultsMaterials, design, and procedure. For Ex-

periment 2a, the only change from Experiment from Experiment 2a. Word targets showed areliable priming effect, F1(1,23) Å 57.06, MSe1 was that targets appeared in alternating up-

per- and lowercase letters (e.g., sMiLe, Å 2,378, F2(1,94) Å 34.04, MSe Å 10,746.Subjects were faster when targets were pre-bReEm) instead of appearing in all uppercase

letters. The first letter of each target was a ceded by repetition (746 ms) than by unrelated(821 ms) primes. As expected, this priminglowercase letter. Primes were again presented

in lowercase letters. effect with case-alternated targets (75 ms) wassubstantially larger than that found in Experi-Experiment 2b was identical to Experiment

2a, except that the lowercase primes were ment 1 where all target letters were uppercase(37 ms). A main effect of word frequency wasmodified to test for physical overlap as the

source of the predicted priming effects in Ex- observed, with high-frequency targets leadingto shorter reaction times (693 ms) than low-periment 2a, as described above. For repeti-

tion primes, the lowercase prime letters that frequency targets (874 ms), F1(1,23) Å102.48, MSe Å 7,615, F2(1,94) Å 68.82, MSecorresponded to the uppercase letters of the

case-alternated targets were replaced with dif- Å 26,441. The magnitude of the frequencyeffect (180 ms) was nearly identical to thatferent letters, under the constraint that conso-

nants replaced consonants, and vowels re- observed in Experiment 1 (183 ms). The addi-tivity of word frequency and format of theplaced vowels (e.g., phone-pHoNe became

ptobe-pHoNe). For unrelated primes, the let- target display (e.g., degraded or case-alter-nated vs normal) in the lexical decision taskters in the corresponding positions were also

modified in this way (e.g., limit-pHoNe be- has been demonstrated by many researchers



TABLE 2

MEAN REACTION TIME (RT, IN MS) AND ERROR PERCENTAGE (%E) IN EXPERIMENT 2


Target RT %E RT %E RT %E

Experiment 2aHigh-freq. word 658 (105) 1.1 (1.9) 729 (108) 3.5 (3.2) 71 (56) 2.4 (3.2)Low-freq. word 834 (129) 15.1 (10.3) 913 (150) 20.5 (10.0) 79 (62) 5.4 (10.8)Nonword 934 (178) 8.0 (7.8) 1027 (224) 6.6 (6.0) 93 (121) 01.4 (7.7)

Experiment 2bHigh-freq. word 761 (129) 4.4 (4.2) 750 (124) 4.4 (4.5) 011 (93) 0.0 (5.9)Low-freq. word 949 (181) 22.0 (12.3) 967 (203) 20.5 (10.7) 19 (90) 01.6 (12.8)Nonword 1074 (268) 10.1 (11.0) 1084 (256) 8.9 (8.4) 9 (59) 01.2 (6.3)

Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses.

(e.g., Becker & Killion, 1977; Besner & letters in repetition primes and the lowercaseletters of their case-alternated targets is not aMcCann, 1987; Borowsky & Besner, 1991;

Stanners, Jastrzembski, & Westbrook, 1975) likely cause of the priming effects observedin Experiment 2a. The effect of target fre-and suggests that word frequency may not af-

fect perceptual encoding. The interaction be- quency was similar to that in Experiment 2a(202 ms), F1(1,23) Å 86.96, MSe Å 11,298,tween priming and word frequency did not

approach significance, Fs õ 1. The estimated F2(1,94) Å 45.41, MSe Å 51,731. As in Exper-iment 2a, there was no interaction betweenpower to detect an interaction in which the

priming effect for high-frequency words was priming and frequency, Fsõ 1.24. In the errorrate analyses, only the main effect of fre-half the size of that observed for low-fre-

quency words was .81 by subjects and .64 by quency was significant, F1(1,23) Å 89.74, MSe

Å 76.52, F2(1,94) Å 41.56, MSe Å 331, withitems.Analyses of error rates for word targets re- more errors made when responding to low-

frequency targets.vealed main effects of priming, F1(1,23) Å12.32, MSe Å 30.03, F2(1,94) Å 7.05, MSe Å Nonword targets. In Experiment 2a, an

ANOVA of nonword target reaction times re-104, and frequency, F1(1,23) Å 88.61, MSe Å65.54, F2(1,94) Å 47.78, MSe Å 243, but no vealed a reliable priming effect, F1(1,23) Å

14.12, MSe Å 7,362, F2(1,47) Å 30.88, MSeinteraction, Fsõ 1.62. More errors were madeon unrelated trials (12.0%) than on repetition Å 6,618, with shorter reaction times on repeti-

tion trials than on unrelated trials (934 ms vstrials (8.1%), and more errors were made tolow-frequency targets (17.8%) than to high- 1027 ms). There was no effect of prime on

error rate, Fs õ 1.frequency targets (2.3%). These error rates arecomparable to those found in Experiment 1. The priming effect for reaction time ob-

served among nonwords was compared to thatThe results of Experiment 2b indicate thatphysical overlap between lowercase letters of found with word targets (collapsing across fre-

quency) in an additional ANOVA with lexi-the prime and lowercase letters of the targetwas not enough to produce priming for the cality (word vs nonword) and prime (repeti-

tion vs unrelated) as factors. The interactionword targets, Fs õ 1. The estimated powerto detect a priming effect for words equal in of target type and priming did not approach

significance, Fs õ 1.magnitude to that found in Experiment 2a was.98 by subjects and .99 by items. Therefore, In Experiment 2b, where we controlled for

physical overlap, the 9-ms effect of primingthe physical overlap between the lowercase



for nonword targets was not reliable, Fs õ overlap explanation were correct, nonwordsand words in Experiment 2a would be ex-1.1. The power to detect a nonword priming

effect equal to that found in Experiment 2a pected to benefit equally from the physicalmatch. Specifically, word targets in Experi-was estimated to be .98 and .99 by subjects

and items, respectively. There was no effect ment 2a should retain the priming advantagethey enjoyed over nonwords in Experiment 1.of prime on error rate, Fs õ 1.3. Thus, it

appears that physical overlap was not respon- Contrary to this prediction, although wordsyielded a larger priming effect than nonwordssible for the nonword priming observed in Ex-

periment 2a. in Experiment 1, F1(1,23) Å 5.14, MSe Å4,496, F2(1,142) Å 5.66, MSe Å 10,410, this

Discussion effect did not hold in Experiment 2a: primingamong nonwords was at least as large asIn Experiment 2a, case-alternation of tar-

gets produced one of the two results predicted among words. This changing pattern of prim-ing effects for words and nonwords providesby lexical accounts of masked repetition prim-

ing: word frequency failed to modulate the further support for our claim that the nonwordpriming observed in Experiment 2a was notpriming effect, counter to what might be ex-

pected by an episodic account. At the same the result of the physical match between thelowercase letters of repetition primes and theirtime, however, nonwords in Experiment 2a

produced a reliable priming effect that was at targets.Instead, we suggest that presenting targetsleast as large as that obtained with word tar-

gets. Masked priming of nonwords in the lexi- in an unfamiliar format through case-alterna-tion made lexical decisions more dependentcal decision task has been reported previously.

Sereno (1991) demonstrated a 29-ms effect, on effortful processing of the target and lessaffected by an immediate impression of famil-Masson and Isaak (1991) found a 23-ms ef-

fect, and Forster (1985, Experiment 1) re- iarity. The processing efficiency afforded byrepetition priming can reduce response latencyported a reliable 24-ms effect. In each of these

cases, priming for nonwords was weaker than when subjects are led to ignore the sense offamiliarity that accompanies a repetition-priming for words, and Forster (1985, 1993)

has suggested that effects such as these are primed nonword. As a further test of this ac-count, a different method of reducing targetunusual or equivocal. In light of this interpre-

tation of earlier priming effects with non- discriminability was used in the next experi-ment.words, the present robust priming effect for

nonwords is important and certainly notEXPERIMENT 3: PSEUDOHOMOPHONEequivocal.

NONWORDSA possible explanation of the priming effectobserved for nonwords in Experiment 2a was Rather than altering the appearance of the

targets, lexical decisions were made more dif-that facilitation was due entirely to the physi-cal match between the lowercase letters of the ficult in Experiment 3 by using nonwords that

were word-like. The nonwords in this experi-alternating-case target and the correspondingletters in the repetition prime. The results of ment were pseudohomophones: letter strings

that do not spell a real word but sound like aExperiment 2b, however, clearly rule out thisinterpretation. Neither nonwords nor words word (e.g., bocks does not spell a word, but

sounds like box). Because pseudohomophonesshowed reliable priming when the letters of arepetition prime that spatially corresponded to sound like real words, they are more difficult

to reject than other pronounceable nonwordsthe uppercase letters of the target were re-placed with different letters, even though the (e.g., Davelaar, Coltheart, Besner, & Jonasson,

1978; Parkin & Ellingham, 1983; Stone & Vanlowercase letters of these primes still had per-fect physical overlap with the lowercase let- Orden, 1993). Thus, although the identifiabil-

ity of word targets in Experiment 3 was notters of the target. Moreover, if the physical



impaired, lexical decisions about these targets Comparing the size of the priming effectfound in Experiment 2a and any priming effectwere expected to be more difficult than in Ex-

periment 1 because phonological information found in Experiment 3 would provide a pre-liminary test of this idea. Reducing target dis-about the target would not be an adequate ba-

sis for lexical decisions and because the ortho- criminability in Experiment 2a created an op-portunity for masked repetition primes tographic pattern of pseudohomophones might

be more word-like. The increased difficulty in make a substantial contribution to the forma-tion of an orthographic representation of themaking the discrimination between words and

nonwords was expected to make subjects target. The large facilitation effect found inExperiment 2a (about twice the size of themore reliant on effortful processing of the tar-

gets and on the benefits provided by repetition effect obtained in Experiment 1) is consistentwith this account. In contrast, targets were notpriming. At the same time, subjects should be

less likely to allow a decision to be affected directly altered in Experiment 3, although re-sponse times were expected to be long as inby a mere impression of familiarity with the

target. Therefore, it was expected that pseudo- Experiment 2a because nonwords consisted ofpseudohomophones. Because target identifi-homophones, like the case-alternated nonword

targets in Experiment 2a, should produce repe- ability is not impeded in any way, however,there is less potential for orthographic pro-tition priming.

If masked priming effects are generated by cessing to benefit from masked priming.Therefore, if masked repetition primes havethe formation and retrieval of the masked

prime episode, an interaction between priming their primary effect on formation of an ortho-graphic representation, the priming effect inand target word frequency would be expected.

The failure to find such an interaction in Ex- Experiment 3 should be less than that foundin Experiment 2a.periment 2a, however, suggests that the inter-

action is not likely to appear in ExperimentMethod3. One reason that word frequency might not

modulate masked repetition priming in the Subjects. Twenty-four students from thesame source as Experiments 1 and 2 weresame way it does long-term repetition priming

is that masked priming might have its primary tested.Materials and design. The design was theeffect on relatively early stages of word pro-

cessing. In particular, suppose a masked prime same as Experiment 1, except that 96 pseudo-homophones, paired with 96 additional unre-creates an episode that has a rich orthographic

representation but only a rudimentary seman- lated pseudohomophone primes, were used asthe nonword targets and required NO re-tic component (although substantial enough

to produce semantic or associative priming; sponses in the lexical decision task. Thesepseudohomophone stimuli are presented in theCarr & Dagenbach, 1990; Sereno, 1991). This

scenario is plausible because the brief time Appendix. Six additional pairs of pseudoho-mophones were prepared for practice trials.devoted to the masked prime might allow for

very little information beyond the ortho- The pseudohomophones sounded like words,although their spelling did not fit any knowngraphic level to be incorporated into the epi-

sode. If word frequency effects depend on pro- word. Care was taken to select orthographi-cally regular pseudohomophones such ascesses beyond the orthographic level (e.g., Be-

sner & Smith, 1992; Borowsky & Besner, REER and WERSE, as recommended bySeidenberg & McClelland (1989). The pseu-1993), then the bulk of the facilitation pro-

duced by a masked prime episode would not dohomophones were created from base wordswith normative frequencies of at least 40 pervary with the frequency of the target word.

Thus, the interaction between word frequency million (Kucera & Francis, 1967). The wordtargets were the same as in the earlier experi-and priming would be very small and hard to

detect. ments. As in Experiment 1, primes were pre-



TABLE 3




High-freq. word 672 (125) 1.2 (2.4) 708 (146) 2.1 (2.8) 36 (77) 0.9 (3.9)Low-freq. word 864 (171) 13.9 (6.8) 914 (177) 17.1 (9.7) 51 (70) 3.2 (7.7)Pseudohomophone 871 (165) 9.9 (7.3) 909 (186) 7.6 (6.5) 38 (73) 02.2 (6.4)


sented in lowercase letters, and targets were high- and 889 ms for low-frequency words),F1(1,23) Å 142.10, MSe Å 6,700, F2(1,94) Åpresented in uppercase letters. Counterbal-

anced assignment of items to priming condi- 103.90, MSe Å 20,845. The interaction be-tween priming and frequency was not signifi-tions and was carried out as in the earlier ex-

periments. There were 24 high-frequency cant, Fs õ 1. The power to detect an interac-tion producing half as much priming for high-words, 24 low-frequency words, and 48 pseu-

dohomophones in each priming condition. as for low-frequency words was .26 and .38for subjects and items, respectively.Procedure. The procedure was identical to

the previous experiments. Subjects were told Another ANOVA was used to analyze errorrates for word targets. Identity priming re-to classify the pseudohomophones as non-

words because although they sounded like real duced error rates, although the effect was mar-ginal in the items analysis, F1(1,23) Å 6.95,words, they did not spell real words.MSe Å 13.98, F2(1,94) Å 3.15, MSe Å 62.41,

Results p Å .08. Errors were more common for low-frequency targets than for high-frequency tar-Awareness of the identity of the primes was

once again estimated by asking subjects what gets, F1(1,23) Å 87.17, MSe Å 52.53, F2(1,94)Å 75.01, MSe Å 122. The interaction was notthey saw in the display just before the target

was presented. This questioning revealed that significant, Fs õ 1.38.To test the prediction that the identity prim-46% of the subjects reported being aware that

some sort of stimulus had been embedded being effect would be smaller in Experiment 3than in Experiment 2a, an additional ANOVAtween the row of Xs and the target.

Means of the subjects’ mean reaction times with experiment, prime, and frequency wasapplied to the reaction time data. Thisand error rates for each priming condition for

word and pseudohomophone targets are shown ANOVA found no main effect of experiment,indicating that overall reaction time was simi-in Table 3. In general, the use of pseudohomo-

phones as nonwords had the anticipated effect lar in the two experiments. There were reliableeffects of prime and frequency, but of greatestof slowing subjects’ lexical decisions, relative

to Experiment 1. Separate ANOVAs were interest was the reliable interaction betweenexperiment and prime, F1(1,46) Å 4.25, MSecomputed for word targets and for pseudoho-

mophone targets to assess priming effects. Å 2,841, F2(1,94) Å 6.03, MSe Å 7,352. Thisinteraction confirms the prediction that theWord targets. Reaction times were ana-

lyzed in an ANOVA with prime and frequency priming effect was larger with the case-alter-nated targets of Experiment 2a than with theas factors. There was a reliable 43-ms repeti-

tion priming effect, F1(1,23) Å 13.71, MSe Å normal targets used in Experiment 3. The ef-fect of priming on the mean error rates for the3,306, F2(1,94) Å 15.06, MSe Å 6,383, and a

reliable word frequency effect (690 ms for two experiments was slightly larger in Experi-



ment 2a than in Experiment 3, ruling out long-term repetition priming, we propose thata much weaker interaction or no interactionspeed–accuracy trade-off as an explanation

for the interaction in the reaction time data. at all would occur if (1) a masked prime cre-ates an episode dominated by a representationPseudohomophone targets. An ANOVA

with prime as the only factor was used to ana- of the prime’s orthography and (2) word fre-quency has little or no effect on the formationlyze reaction time data for the pseudohomo-

phone targets. This analysis revealed a reliable of an orthographic representation of a letterstring. In support of the first of these two as-38-ms repetition priming effect, F1(1,23) Å

6.51, MSe Å 2,661, F2(1,95) Å 6.11, MSe Å sumptions, the priming effect was signifi-cantly larger in Experiment 2a than in Experi-10,834. A similar ANOVA applied to error

rates indicated that there was no significant ment 3, even though overall reaction time wasvery similar in the two studies. We attributeeffect of priming on errors.

The priming effect in reaction time ob- the larger priming effect in Experiment 2a tothe use of visually unfamiliar, case-alternatedserved for pseudohomophones was compared

to the priming effect for word targets (collaps- targets and a greater reliance on repetitionprimes in constructing an orthographic repre-ing across frequency) in an ANOVA with lexi-

cality and prime as factors. The interaction of sentation of the targets.Although an interaction between frequencytarget type and priming was nonsignificant,

Fs õ 1, indicating that words and nonwords and priming was not obtained, as predicted bythe lexical account of masked priming, that ac-benefited equally from repetition primes.count runs into difficulty with the other major

Discussion result of Experiment 3. The pseudohomophonenonwords yielded a reliable repetition primingUsing pseudohomophones was an effective

method of increasing the difficulty of making effect, replicating the result of Experiment 2awhich used standard pronounceable nonwords.lexical decisions, as indicated by the relatively

long reaction times in Experiment 3 as com- By the lexical account, nonwords should notshow repetition priming in the lexical decisionpared with Experiment 1. Although both

prime and word-frequency had reliable ef- task because they have no lexical entry to beopened by the identity prime. The fact that non-fects, these two factors did not interact. The

power of Experiment 3 to detect an interac- words once again produced as much primingas words indicates that a process other thantion, however, was rather low. To produce

a more powerful test of the interaction, the opening a lexical entry played a fundamentalrole in generating the facilitation associatedreaction time data from Experiments 1, 2a,

and 3 were combined in a single ANOVA. with repetition priming. The proposed contri-bution of masked repetition priming to the con-This analysis also failed to find a significant

interaction between frequency and priming, struction of a target’s orthographic representa-tion is consistent with the finding of robustFs õ 1.9. The power of this analysis to detect

an interaction in which the priming effect for priming effects among nonwords.A proponent of the lexical account, how-high-frequency targets was half the magnitude

of that for low-frequency targets was esti- ever, might explain the masked priming ofpseudohomophones by arguing that on repeti-mated to be .88 in the subject analysis, and

.79 in the item analysis. Thus, even with a test tion trials, the lexical entry for the pseudoho-mophone’s base word was opened. Detectionthat achieved a reasonable degree of power

(Cohen, 1988), the interaction was not found. of the mismatch between the orthography ofthe spelling code in the opened lexical entryThe lack of interaction is consistent with

the lexical account of repetition priming and and the orthography of the pseudohomophonetarget would facilitate NO responses on theseplaces an important constraint on the episodic

account. To accommodate the lack of an inter- trials. If this argument were valid, then onewould expect even more facilitation of NOaction similar in magnitude to that found in



responses on trials where the pseudohomo- of familiarity with the target letter string, itshould be possible for that familiarity to slowphone target is unrelated to its pseudohomo-

phone prime. This prediction follows because responses to nonwords. Increased responsetimes would arise because the familiarity pro-the unrelated prime would open the lexical

entry of its base word (recall that unrelated duced by repetition priming of a nonwordcould be misconstrued as evidence in favor ofprimes were also pseudohomophones). The

mismatch between the spelling code of that classifying the nonword as a word (e.g., Feu-opened entry and the unrelated pseudohomo- stel et al., 1983; Kirsner & Speelman, 1996).phone target’s orthography would be even This interference effect should occur if lexicalgreater than in the case of repetition primed decisions are predominantly influenced by anpseudohomophone targets. The orthographic immediate sense of familiarity. Whereas sub-mismatch hypothesis must therefore predict jects in Experiments 2 and 3 were forced toan interference effect for pseudohomophone process targets effortfully, making the word/targets (i.e., shorter reaction times in the unre- nonword discrimination easier than in thoselated condition relative to the repetition prime experiments should produce a relativelycondition). The large positive priming effect greater dependence on a sense of familiarityfor pseudohomophones in Experiment 3 for targets.clearly rules out this line of argument. In Experiment 4, the lexical decision task

We conclude that when lexical decisions was made much easier by using words of onlyare made more difficult, causing subjects to very high frequency and nonwords that con-rely more on effortful target processing, the sisted of consonant strings. Given the highbenefits of masked repetition priming for non- degree of distinctiveness between these twowords can be reliably demonstrated. This ef- sets of items, it was expected that subjectsfect is obscured when lexical decisions are would exert less effort processing the targets,based on a more superficial analysis of targets and would instead rely primarily on the appar-combined with the influence of a sense of fa- ent familiarity of the target. The familiarity ofmiliarity engendered by repetition. That sense the orthography of targets would be an ade-of familiarity, if used as a basis for a word/ quate basis for making responses in this situa-nonword decision, acts against making the tion (James, 1975; Shulman & Davidson,correct decision in the case of nonwords. This 1977). Although the overall degree of famil-conflict is assumed to counteract the pro- iarity with word targets experienced undercessing benefit that repetition priming would these circumstances might be less than thatotherwise bestow upon nonwords, leading to produced when word meaning plays a largerthe null effect of masking priming on non- role in making lexical decisions, when con-words that has been observed in the lexical trasted with nonpronounceable nonwordsdecision task (e.g., Experiment 1; Forster & there would be greater differentiation betweenDavis, 1984). If this trade-off account is cor- word and nonword targets with respect to or-rect, it should be possible to construct condi- thographic familiarity. That sense of familiar-tions under which the processing benefit of ity is assumed therefore to play a larger rolerepetition priming is outweighed by the cost in driving lexical decisions than is the caseof discounting the feeling of familiarity, so when nonwords are pronounceable. By de-that an interference effect, rather than a facili- pending mainly on familiarity, subjects wouldtative effect, will be found with nonwords. be seriously misled by the fluent processingThe purpose of the final experiment was to associated with repetition-primed nonwords.create such a situation. The sense of familiarity created by repetition

EXPERIMENT 4: REVERSAL OF priming would be inconsistent with the evi-FORTUNE FOR NONWORDS dence provided by a nonword target’s ortho-

graphic pattern, thereby slowing the produc-If a masked repetition prime enhances per-ceived processing fluency and, hence, a sense tion of a correct response. Although the effect



of masked priming on nonwords might instead random responding, subjects were told that asummary of their performance would bebe revealed in error rates, an effect on reaction

time seemed more likely, given the ease of shown to them following the experiment. The12 practice trials were presented in randomthe discrimination required by the materials

used here. order, followed by 192 critical trials in randomorder. Rest breaks occurred after every 64 crit-In addition to expecting an interference ef-

fect for repetition-primed nonwords, we antic- ical trials.ipated that word targets would continue to

Resultsshow a facilitative repetition effect. The prim-ing effect for words in Experiment 4 might be When asked about visual events occurring

just before each target, 38% of the subjectssmaller than that observed in earlier experi-ments because the discrimination task is much reported being aware that a something had

been flashed before the target was presented.easier, reducing reliance on the primes (Whit-tlesea & Jacoby, 1990). As in the earlier experiments and as in Forster

and Davis (1984), however, subjects could re-Method port few details about the nature of the primes

(e.g., whether they were words, whether theySubjects. Thirty-two subjects from the samesource as Experiments 1–3 were tested. were in upper- or lowercase letters).

Table 4 shows the means of subjects’ meanMaterials and design. Targets were 96words of very high frequency (100–400 oc- reaction times and error rates for each of the

priming conditions for word and nonword tar-currences per million; Kucera & Francis,1967), such as DOOR and FAITH, and 96 gets. A comparison of reaction times in Table

4 with those in the earlier experiments (Tablesnonword consonant strings such as TWLT andSHTGS, of four or five letters in length. For 1–3) indicates that the subjects in Experiment

4 were much faster in making lexical deci-each target, an unrelated prime of the sametype (i.e., word or consonant string) was se- sions. Reaction time and error data were ana-

lyzed separately for word and nonword tar-lected, as in the previous experiments. Unre-lated primes shared no letters with their corre- gets.

Word targets. An ANOVA with prime assponding targets. These word and nonwordmaterials are presented in the Appendix. Two the only factor was used to analyze the reac-

tion time data for word targets. This analysislists of 48 word targets and two lists of 48nonword targets were created, with one list of revealed that lexical decisions were reliably

faster on repetition trials (491 ms) than oneach type assigned to each priming condition.This assignment was counterbalanced across unrelated prime trials (514 ms), F1(1,31) Å

78.45, MSe Å 101, F2(1,95) Å 47.85, MSe Åsubjects so that each item appeared equallyoften in each priming condition. An additional 512. As expected, the size of this priming ef-

fect (22-ms) was somewhat smaller than in12 pairs of primes and targets were createdfor use as practice items (six word pairs, six Experiments 1–3. A smaller effect suggests

that the ease of the discrimination required innonword pairs).Procedure. The procedure was the same as Experiment 4 made subjects less dependent

on the benefits of the prime to classify words.the previous experiments, with the followingexceptions. To persuade subjects to rely more Another possibility is that because responses

were made in such a short time frame, theon the familiarity they experienced when mak-ing their decisions, instructions emphasized potential amount of benefit that priming could

generate was reduced.speed rather than both speed and accuracy.Also, no feedback was given for incorrect re- Error rates for word targets were very low.

An ANOVA indicated that there was no effectsponses, although feedback was provided asin earlier experiments on trials where subjects of priming on errors, Fs õ 1.

Nonword targets. As predicted, the fluencytook longer than 1 s to respond. To discourage



TABLE 4




Word 491 (44) 1.7 (2.1) 514 (45) 2.2 (2.5) 22 (14) 0.5 (2.7)Nonword 519 (48) 2.0 (2.6) 510 (50) 2.0 (2.6) 09 (23) 0.0 (3.0)


granted by a repetition prime worked against tion trials represented only 25% of the trials,so the fluency strategy would be appropriateappropriate responding for nonword targets.

This effect appeared in an ANOVA of the for a large majority of the trials. Second, thefluency strategy was encouraged by the em-reaction time measure as an increase in reac-

tion time on repetition trials relative to unre- phasis on rapid responding. Third, given thesmall magnitude of the priming effect for non-lated prime trials (519 ms vs 510 ms by sub-

jects; 521 vs 511 by items), F1(1,31) Å 5.03, words, it is most probable that subjects wereunaware of their hesitation on nonword repeti-MSe Å 265, F2(1,95) Å 5.30, MSe Å 826. Al-

though the size of this interference effect is tion trials.The demonstration that priming nonwordssmall and comparable to nonsignificant prim-

ing effects observed in other experiments re- can slow responding lends support to a non-lexical account of failures to find maskedported here, it occurred in an environment as-

sociated with much less variability in perfor- priming of nonwords. On the nonlexical ac-count, encoding of nonwords benefits frommance both between and within subjects.

Thus, the interference effect was statistically masked repetition priming, but that processingbenefit serves as evidence in favor of classify-reliable and consistent, appearing in the data

for 24 of the 32 subjects. As with word targets, ing the nonword as a word. Discounting thatevidence takes time, thereby counteracting thethere were no effects of priming in the error

rates, Fs õ 1. benefit produced by the prime. Although ex-planations that depend on this kind of balanc-

Discussion ing trade-off are justifiably met with skepti-cism regarding the good fortune supposedlyBy making the word/nonword discrimina-

tion almost trivial, we argue that subjects required for a perfect balance to be struck,we have shown that the scales can be evenlycame to rely heavily on an immediate sense

of familiarity or fluency in making lexical de- balanced or tipped in either direction.The finding that repetition priming of non-cisions. This approach to the task became a

liability when nonword targets were preceded words can be manipulated by inducing sub-jects to use or to avoid using fluency as aby repetition primes. The familiarity gener-

ated by priming nonwords ran counter to the basis for lexical decisions runs counter to animportant assumption made by the lexical ac-classification response that was required,

thereby slowing responses. count, namely that masked repetition primeshave their effect by opening a target’s lexicalAlthough it might seem counterproductive

for subjects to use fluency as a basis for re- entry prior to the presentation of the target.By this account, nonwords should not showsponding because it would lead them astray

on nonword repetition trials, there are at least effects of repetition priming. Contrary to thisproposal, we have demonstrated that non-three reasons why subjects would have ad-

hered to this approach. First, nonword repeti- words are sensitive to masked primes and that



None of the experiments reported here, whentaken individually, had substantial power todetect an interaction between frequency andpriming. The combined analysis of Experi-ments 1, 2a, and 3, however, had adequatepower to detect an interaction of the size foundin long-term repetition priming but failed todo so. Neither of the methods we used to maketarget processing difficult, and ostensiblymore dependent on the prime episode, pro-duced greater priming for low- than for high-

FIG. 1. Mean priming effect (in ms) Experiments 1–4. frequency words (see also, Besner & McCann,Error bars indicate the 95% confidence interval for the

1987; Mayall & Humphreys, 1996).priming effect.In view of the fact that frequency and prim-

ing do not appear to interact under maskedconditions, the episodic account is constrained

the effect of this priming can be influenced by in an important way. Our conjecture is thatvarying the manner in which subjects perform the episodic representation of a masked primelexical decisions. is primarily invested in the orthographic form

of the prime. This proposition is consistentGENERAL DISCUSSION

with the finding of reliable priming effects forThe main results of Experiments 1–4 are words and nonwords in Experiment 2a, where

summarized in Fig. 1, which shows priming the orthographic forms of the primes are main-scores calculated as the difference between tained, but not in Experiment 2b, where themean reaction time for unrelated-prime trials orthographic forms of the primes were modi-and mean reaction time for repetition-prime fied by changing the prime letters that corre-trials. Two main features of the data are appar- sponded to the uppercase target letters. Thisent in the figure. First, there is no reliable proposition is also consistent with the findingevidence for a frequency attenuation effect un- of an increasing monotonic relation betweender masked prime conditions. Second, repeti- the number of letters in common between ation priming of nonwords was shown to vary masked prime and a target in the masked wordacross experiments, ranging from a facilitative identification task (Humphreys, Evett, &effect, through no effect, to an interference Quinlan, 1990). If episodic traces of maskedeffect. The general implications of these two primes contain primarily orthographic infor-findings are discussed in turn. mation, then the failure to find a frequency

attenuation effect may be due to word fre-Additivity of Frequency and Priming quency having little impact on the construc-

tion of an orthographic representation of a let-As highlighted in Fig. 1, Experiments 1, 2a,and 3 provided more examples of additivity ter string (Besner & Smith, 1992; Borowsky &

Besner, 1993). Frequency attenuation effectsof word frequency and priming in the maskedrepetition priming paradigm (see also Ferrand observed in long-term repetition priming pre-

sumably arise from episodic representationset al., 1994; Forster & Davis, 1984; Ra-jaram & Neely, 1992; Segui & Grainger, that have captured substantial aspects of the

meaning and perhaps other aspects of the1990; Sereno, 1991). Additivity of frequencyand priming was also found by Humphreys et prime word, a result enabled by longer prime

presentation durations. Thus semantic or asso-al. (1987, 1988) in the masked word identifi-cation paradigm. In assessing the implications ciative information would be responsible for

producing the interaction between frequencyof a null effect, it is important to consider thepower of statistical tests to detect the effect. and priming in long-term repetition priming.



Specifically, we suggest that the interaction the prime is presented, hence priming shouldbe equal in these two conditions. From anoccurs because the episodic trace of a low-

frequency repetition prime that contains se- episodic perspective, on the other hand, prim-ing should be stronger for the matched-casemantic information is more distinctive than a

comparable trace formed by a high frequency prime condition because that condition pro-vides the greatest similarity between the pro-prime. Because of this greater distinctiveness,

the representation of the priming event will cessing applied to the prime and that appliedto the target (Jacoby, 1983).play a greater role in affecting subsequent pro-

cessing of the matching target word.Nonword PrimingMasked priming cannot be claimed to leave

the episodic trace devoid of semantic or asso- The second major result apparent in Fig. 1is the impressive variability of priming effectsciative elements because small but reliable se-

mantic or associative priming has been ob- for nonword targets, highlighting the impor-tance of the factors that were manipulatedserved with masked primes (Carr & Dagen-

bach, 1990; Sereno, 1991). On the proposal across experiments. We systematically intro-duced conditions under which masked repeti-put forward here, any interaction between

word frequency and repetition priming would tion priming of nonwords showed no effect ofpriming (Experiments 1 and 2b), facilitativehave to be supported by this higher level infor-

mation. The episodic trace of a masked prime, priming (Experiments 2a and 3), and interfer-ence (Experiment 4). Although the absence ofhowever, would have very little information

of this type and would therefore be capable masked priming of nonwords has previouslybeen attributed to a lexical basis for primingof supporting at best a weak frequency attenu-

ation effect relative to that seen in long-term in the absence of the formation of episodictraces (e.g., Forster, 1987; Forster & Davis,repetition priming. A small effect would be

very difficult to detect given the power of the 1984; Forster et al., 1987), the reliable nonwordpriming effects reported here and elsewhereexperimental designs typically used to exam-

ine masked priming. (Forster, 1985; Masson & Isaak, 1991; Sereno,1991) provide evidence that challenges the lex-If this modified episodic account is correct,

an informative test between that account and ical account of masked priming. According tothat account, nonword primes should not havethe lexical account of masked priming would

involve manipulation of a variable sensitive to had an effect on lexical decisions because non-words are not lexically represented, and thereinformation assumed to dominate the episodic

trace hypothesized to be formed by a 60-ms was not adequate opportunity to learn the non-words so that priming could occur at a lexicalmasked display. Case-alternation of the prime

provides such a testing ground. Besner & level (Feustel et al., 1983; Monsell, 1985; Ra-jaram & Neely, 1992).Swan (1982) first described such an experi-

ment, ‘‘It would be interesting to know One explanation for facilitative priming ofnonwords is that nonwords, relative to words,whether RaBbIt would prime RaBbIt more

than rAbBiT’’ (p. 323). Long-term repetition have more room to benefit from repetitionpriming, because nonwords normally requirepriming with words printed in transformed ty-

pography or a novel font has confirmed this longer response times. By this argument, how-ever, low-frequency words should have shownprediction (Horton & McKenzie, 1995; Mas-

son, 1986). If masked priming turns out to more repetition priming than high-frequencywords, and although the trend was in this di-produce a similar result (with, for example, a

suitable mask intervening between prime and rection, the interaction of frequency and prim-ing never approached significance in our ex-target), the episodic account would gain sub-

stantial support. From an abstractionist per- periments.A more plausible explanation is that thespective, the prime makes contact with its lex-

ical entry if either case-alternated version of magnitude and direction of nonword priming



effects in lexical decision are determined by nonwords. In line with this prediction, Masson(1996) has found that words and nonwordsthe balance between the relative contributionsshow comparable facilitative effects of maskedof the sense of familiarity and the enhancedrepetition primes in a naming task. This resultefficiency of target encoding produced by aoccurred even when precautions were taken torepetition prime. Facilitative effects of maskedensure that unrelated primes had the same onsetspriming of nonwords is expected under condi-as repetition primes, thereby eliminating thetions in which processing fluency induced byStroop-like interference effect that can producea repetition prime is experienced during rela-spurious masked priming effects when unrelatedtively challenging target processing, as in Ex-primes and targets have different onsets (For-periments 2 and 3. When targets must be thor-ster & Davis, 1991).oughly analyzed before an accurate response

can be given, the immediate sense of familiar- Conclusionity or novelty produced by a letter string has On the episodic account of masked repeti-much less impact on the lexical decision. Inter- tion priming developed here, masking primesference effects, in contrast, will be obtained does not eliminate the formation and influencewhen superficial processing of target letter of episodic traces on lexical decisions. Westrings is adequate to yield accurate lexical de- note that Forster and Davis (1984) have notcisions. Under these conditions, as in Experi- claimed that masking a prime completelyment 4, decisions are determined in large part eliminates episodic influences. Indeed, For-by the sense of familiarity invoked by a target ster, Booker, Schacter, and Davis (1990) sug-letter string. To classify correctly a nonword gested that this may not be possible. Instead,in this case requires discounting the effect a we argue that masking serves to constrain therepetition prime will have on a nonword target, nature of information that can be encoded intothereby slowing the final response. an episodic trace. We further suggest that epi-

This explanation of the variable pattern of sodic traces of masked primes contain primar-nonword priming is not compatible with the ily orthographic information, which is suffi-lexical account of masked repetition priming, cient to produce nonword priming but whichbut fits well with an episodic account. On that is not adequate to support an attenuation ofaccount, the effect of a masked prime is to cre- the word frequency effect.ate an episodic trace that improves processing In the context of the tachistoscopic wordfluency when task demands cause the trace to be identification paradigm, Humphreys et al.recruited from memory. The resulting fluency (1988) suggested that masked repetition ef-makes processing of the target, particularly the fects may not be lexical at all. The presentestablishment of an orthographic representation, experiments provide convincing evidence togo forward more efficiently and instills a feeling extend this conclusion to the masked lexicalof familiarity in the subject. decision paradigm as well. Although additiv-

A prediction of this account of masked ity of frequency and priming is consistent withpriming of nonwords is that when the con- both lexical and episodic accounts of maskedstraints of lexical decision are removed, it priming, the orderly pattern of nonword prim-should be possible to observe a clear facilita- ing effects found here clearly is not compati-

ble with the lexical account.tive effect of masked repetition priming on



APPENDIX

Materials Used in the Experiments

Experiments 1, 2a, and 3: High- and Low-Frequency Word Targets and TheirUnrelated Primes. (Materials for Experiment 2b can be recreated by replacing theappropriate letters in the primes as described in the method section of that experiment.)

High-frequency pairs Low-frequency pairs

Target Prime Target Prime Target Prime Target Prime

august origin forget twelve amulet beggar pacify cobalttour mail anger bible crease parrot sultry groveltall spot poem sale gnome banal jalopy nibblestrike plenty skill throw yearn gusto plaid heroncook here symbol honest tofu shim arid rashcousin anyway yellow attend duct fern baffle heresygrass blind hole ring rudder magpie memoir parcelliquid driven pilot crowd cider graze birch cameosoil iron pair soul gulley carnal pawn dentphone limit listen device senile rafter maxim tangoseat pink review useful loon ajar whim pokelawyer struck agree chest morose squint dire clapartist flight female taught mauve scour adore stumpmedium pocket milk suit bonus flail beige smeartruck alive weapon artery rabid shill ensue drawlpull loan gold shut thong grail garish octavewheel pride smile grown stifle anemic invert embryomuscle abroad double switch yoga meld mural poliouncle shook stone apply oblong maiden cove feudbrain occur chain trust tint smog thug lilyaward shift snow wave awry moan curd baitlake bond motor grand kelp edit usher melonbrush apart bear path glint manic frolic sombretree sell skin tiny coax plum ajar lame

Experiments 1 and 2a: Nonword Targets and Primes. (Critical targets are shownwith their unrelated primes; each filler target was always paired with either a repetitionor an unrelated prime, as shown.)

Critical pairs Filler pairs


breem dafot jasant riquen norbat norbat veeze omandnent wule karfal dogend pait pait sivert fellopblyner whafon harbed trinab shret shret voamig meesanbeasal yoffer faije lomit lokes lokes tolph binteperd swib dawp quat queck queck yoment urroilblait morga heest koowe lovink lovink triner colpok

AID JML 2507 / a00c$$2507 07-23-97 14:02:37 jmla AP: JML


APPENDIX—Continued

Critical pairs Filler pairs


serm hoob goap yins rurola rurola tunce rinascasoil wergat gurst kelil nung nung virck fetopdeece mawer frooze nimagi queler queler slamph cindleburse comap beal jilk prott prott trufe yasondemmit glucer nazz woll klite klite dess jolaemazen ocella gotist quafel merse merse flot puwafeap sude kaize plobi drim drim clud opitbruve pliem hirth vayme lukner lukner wackel misrotcroop houde frouch kammer grib grib jurt houdberge hozas furve plort vole vole birl pebajaul swof poan ivek phoyce phoyce turth shompawel koye jinge aselk doad doad cait leemdight irrol loatch cendes faws faws haik brupwote pril mong gliv prokol prokol srinal wertovbranel huspit pide foet preet preet bool uwityait dife lestek wavort mont mont wirch amengaverme bliven vawl nert kerth kerth snocke jirgalbogget varcol jasum klewt marhol marhol strow kumfa

Experiment 3: Pseudohomophone Targets and Unrelated Primes.


taxiz kongo ahpra luice werld oftin mutch brottontu hewj drawma moshun cince tryal trew moovangree wrapid lickor souled saim erth becaim trubleangull ekstra mewn lukk plaice meerly streat methidgard lyze saik fule hoam lyfe tern paydafoard shurly luvlee creait wunce kosts cort aygehandal beegun atim pikk duzz eest forse basikreer stik ajent kross corse groop voyce amungduzzen smewth rair gest werk kold senter comminpalis chooz proov joynt sistem akross frunt peeceburdin sampul smoak laten erlee sitty surfis traidewyer poap wery bott daiz werd meen kairteech pryme spyte kownt faice leest entyre levilldryver phlesh katch shews wight caise sune keapgaims kween sede gunz cherch simpal spaice normilafrade pourch oxagin dauler servis maibee hoap leevcelf sawt prizin balley doar sezz persin studeesikk ajes fale ryed sence klass staige cullerdrah eeze mear looz naim luvv feal sydeslite minut mentle trupes gaiv dunn markit eyland





payce bujit klawth atomik sertin aibull purpis laiterrufe trak obtane eazier haff neer reddy cleerscail funee werse grais munny kwite squair morillbredd ackts vytal smeer shure eetch frend howse

Experiment 4: Word Targets and Unrelated Primes.


force clear daily lower paper bring hair clubpeace third play type late read look citylight thing list fear mean gone color readychild total cent talk bill step river doingwest turn brown stage name help court valuefine sort group point past seen heart basicparty short plan hard below stock woman closeheavy visit door kind board known study heardgreen image death local free real piece wronghuman whole side felt land feel size armydark hope young white love full paid hourwife seem plane doubt music level alone basiskeep sure wall move cold rest radio chiefmeet hear blue deal sound leave true costface best speak price town rate south majorstory final floor range book fire call nearidea soon month cause plant truth voice frontlead note feet gave earth stand table blacktrade moral space union start issue road viewgirl able money field food hall find roomlost data show line blood march word weeklarge power care hold class north body halffall sent faith staff trial maybe horse sevenopen case want mind hotel press east live

Experiment 4: Nonword Targets and Unrelated Primes.


rgprt ksnks skwcr rsdds flshn twfgb qtfn vsdlgrvll jgmgh dlrt wrtk vlnm bnmd crlbn sdktdrcvb kdfg fmpms kltch rpth wmld prvts wnlknhssh flnr twlt dldl dplk lrjr zcrk krflrlrd ttbn lrngr fdflt jrts rvmr tlgt xtchnnmc rgsl sfnln rflng bfvm lppl nbln rtnsglrtn rrtbs shtgs ndlff nshbd sdkgh drwth tlrnn





srtp rtgh lrrg wsth zvcb lsdg ftrk krptfrwnd sdlpr brjt chlp rtld mrth tldzs knpflmnkld ntnbc whcll bcvmd plrns fknmd sdths krvmdtfgd vhkm blnc fhtl hgrt gbsd twgff vmpnltwtr sksk trwtt cvhdl ddgr gtcd frsds gtllrgkln lvfb sdhmk nckld sckrs dbcdc bkbnm cfflctqlcs strlt trltt jngdc hrlrq ghplm rtlr gpglrdbr ffgh bhwp cjln vnmbn kjdws dfggh rvltmnlrt bnmg cbngd mvbnl nwrs rmfb nwrtn lkglrjrtts fhnmp qwcth lsfdt zcxnd kssdq rctnd knscffrch rmtm nmngg dlssd snsm gbln fbbr pgdwdllp lsdh lklt mvbv knwl trts wpdlt bxcsmfnrrn hrbmd plmbb rvlth brtr sgrt bcnmc kfsddwwmf glhd cllkn krfft twph wtrn nmsd grbrrnrl kllb flmmr rtkrm lvfln rnvcc rdgl ttskffds mgll wrths nnglk msdfr gwrng wrnrl qvklmtrplp fgzpw whxw gsdl rtmb svth prwd fghp

Carr, T. H., & Dagenbach, D. (1990). Semantic primingREFERENCESand repetition priming from masked words: Evidence

Becker, C. A. (1979). Semantic contexts and word fre- for a center-surround attentional mechanism in per-quency effects in visual word recognition. Journal ceptual recognition. Journal of Experimental Psy-of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and chology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16,Performance, 5, 252–259. 341–350.

Becker, C. A., & Killion, T. H. (1977). Interaction of vi- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behav-sual and cognitive effects in word identification. ioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Per- Davelaar, E., Coltheart, M., Besner, D., & Jonasson, J. T.ception and Performance, 3, 389–401. (1978). Phonological recoding and lexical access.

Besner, D., & McCann, R. S. (1987). Word frequency Memory & Cognition, 6, 391–402.and pattern distortion in visual word identification den Heyer, K., & Benson, K. (1988). Constraints on theand production: An examination of four classes of additive relationship between semantic priming andmodels. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and perfor- word repetition and on the interactive relationshipmance XII (pp. 201–219). London: Erlbaum. between semantic priming and stimulus quality. Ca-

Besner, D., & Smith, M. C. (1992). Models of visual word nadian Journal of Psychology, 42, 399–413.recognition: When obscuring the stimulus yields a Duchek, J. T., & Neely, J. H. (1989). A dissociative word-clearer view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: frequency 1 levels-of-processing interaction in epi-Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 468–482. sodic recognition and lexical decision tasks. Mem-

Besner, D., & Swan, M. (1982). Models of lexical access ory & Cognition, 17, 148–162.in visual word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Ex- Evett, L. J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1981). The use ofperimental Psychology, 34A, 313–325. abstract graphemic information in lexical access.

Borowsky, R., & Besner, D. (1991). Visual word recogni- Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33,tion across orthographies: On the interaction between 325–350.context and degradation. Journal of Experimental Ferrand, L., Grainger, J., & Segui, J. (1994). A study ofPsychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, masked form priming in picture and word naming.272–276. Memory & Cognition, 22, 431–441.

Borowsky, R., & Besner, D. (1993). Visual word recogni- Feustel, T. C., Shiffrin, R. M., & Salasoo, A. (1983). Epi-tion: A multistage activation model. Journal of Ex- sodic and lexical contributions to the repetition effectperimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psy-

chology: General, 112, 309–346.Cognition, 19, 813–840.



Forbach, G. B., Stanners, R. F., & Hochhaus, L. (1974). Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9,Repetition and practice effects in a lexical decision 21–38.task. Memory & Cognition, 2, 337–339. Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship

Forster, K. I. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. In between autobiographical memory and perceptualR. J. Wales & E. Walker (Eds.), New approaches to learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Gen-language mechanisms (pp. 257–287). Amsterdam: eral, 110, 306–340.North-Holland. Jacoby, L. L., Woloshyn, V., & Kelley, C. (1989). Be-

Forster, K. I. (1985). Lexical acquisition and the modular coming famous without being recognized: Uncon-lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 87– scious influences of memory produced by divided108. attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Gen-

Forster, K. I. (1987). Form-priming with masked primes: eral, 118, 115–125.The best-match hypothesis. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Jacoby, L. L., & Whitehouse, K. (1989). An illusion ofAttention and performance XII (pp. 127–146). Lon- memory: False recognition influenced by uncon-don: Erlbaum. scious perception. Journal of Experimental Psychol-

Forster, K. I. (1993). Form priming and temporal integra- ogy: General, 118, 126–135.tion in word recognition. In G. Altmann & R. Shill- James, C. T. (1975). The role of semantic information incock (Eds.), Cognitive models of speech processing: lexical decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychol-The second Sperlonga meeting (pp. 467–495). Hove: ogy: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 130–Erlbaum. 136.

Forster, K. I., Booker, J., Schacter, D. L., & Davis, C. Kirsner, K., & Smith, M. C. (1974). Modality effects in(1990). Masked repetition priming: Lexical activa- word identification. Memory & Cognition, 2, 637–tion or novel memory trace? Bulletin of the Psy- 640.chonomic Society, 28, 341–345. Kirsner, K., & Speelman, C. (1996). Skill acquisition and

Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and repetition priming: One principle, many processes?frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Memory, and Cognition, 22, 563–575.Cognition, 10, 680–698.

Kucera, J., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational anal-Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1991). The density constraint

ysis of present day American English. Providence,on form-priming in the naming task: Interference ef-

RI: Brown University Press.fects from a masked prime. Journal of Memory and

Levy, B. A., & Kirsner, K. (1989). Reprocessing text:Language, 30, 1–25.Indirect measures of word and message level pro-

Forster, K. I., Davis, C., Schoknecht, C., & Carter, R.cesses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learn-(1987). Masked priming with graphemically relateding, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 407–417.forms: Repetition or partial activation? Quarterly

Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of autom-Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39, 211–251.atization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.Forster, K. I., & Shen, D. (1996). No enemies in the

MacLeod, C. M. (1989). Word context during initial ex-neighborhood: Absence of inhibitory neighborhoodposure influences degree of priming in word frag-effects in lexical decision and semantic categoriza-ment completion. Journal of Experimental Psychol-tion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,ogy: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 398–Memory, and Cognition, 22, 696–713.406.Horton, K. D., & McKenzie, B. D. (1995). Specificity of

Masson, M. E. J. (1986). Identification of typographicallyperceptual processing in rereading spatially trans-transformed words: Instance-based skill acquisition.formed materials. Memory & Cognition, 23, 279–Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,288.Memory, and Cognition, 12, 479–488.Humphreys, G. W., Besner, D., & Quinlan, P. T. (1988).

Masson, M. E. J. (1996). Removing the constraints onEvent perception and the word repetition effect.masked repetition priming of nonwords. ManuscriptJournal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117,in preparation.51–67.

Masson, M. E. J., & Isaak, M. I. (1991). When two eventsHumphreys, G. W., Evett, L. J., & Quinlan, P. T. (1990).are perceived as one: The influence of informationalOrthographic processing in visual word identifica-persistence on masked priming in word identifica-tion. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 517–560.tion. Unpublished manuscript.Humphreys, G. W., Evett, L. J., Quinlan, P. T., & Besner, D.

Mayall, K., & Humphreys, G. W. (1996). Case mixing(1987). Orthographic priming: Qualitative differencesand the task-sensitive disruption of lexical pro-between priming from identified and unidentifiedcessing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learn-primes. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and perfor-ing, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 278–294.mance XII (pp. 105–125). London: Erlbaum.

McKone, E. (1995). Short-term implicit memory forJacoby, L. L. (1983). Perceptual enhancement: Persistenteffects of an experience. Journal of Experimental words and nonwords. Journal of Experimental Psy-



chology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, prime-target frequency. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Human Perception and Performance,1008–1126.16, 65–76.Meyer, D. E., Schvaneveldt, R. W., & Ruddy, M. G.

Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distrib-(1975). Loci of contextual effects on visual worduted, developmental model of word recognition andidentification. In P. M. A. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds.),naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.Attention and performance V (pp. 98–118). New

Sereno, J. A. (1991). Graphemic, associative, and syntac-York: Academic Press.tic priming effects at a brief stimulus onset asynch-Monsell, S. (1985). Repetition and the lexicon. In A. W.rony in lexical decision and naming. Journal of Ex-Ellis (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of languageperimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and(Vol. 2, pp. 147–195). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Cognition, 17, 459–477.Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word rec-

Shulman, H. G., & Davidson, T. C. B. (1977). Controlognition. Psychological Review, 76, 165–178.properties of semantic coding in a lexical decisionMorton, J. (1979). Facilitation in word recognition: Ex-task. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behav-periments causing change in the logogen model. Inior, 16, 91–98.P. A. Kolers, M. E. Wrolstad, & H. Bouma (Eds.),

Stanners, R. F., & Forbach, G. B. (1973). Analysis ofProcessing of visible language (Vol. 1, pp. 259–letter strings in word recognition. Journal of Experi-268). New York: Plenum.mental Psychology, 98, 31–35.Norris, D. (1984). The effects of frequency, repetition,

Stanners, R. F., Jastrzembski, J. E., & Westbrook, A.and stimulus quality in visual word recognition.(1975). Frequency and visual quality in a word-non-Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A,word classification task. Journal of Verbal Learning507–518.and Verbal Behavior, 14, 259–264.Oliphant, G. W. (1983). Repetition and recency effects in

Stone, G. O., & van Orden, G. C. (1993). Strategic controlword recognition. Australian Journal of Psychology,

of processing in word recognition. Journal of Experi-35, 393–403.mental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor-

Parkin, A. J., & Ellingham, R. (1983). Phonological re-mance, 19, 744–774.

coding in lexical decision: The influence of pseudo-Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (1994). Effects of truncation on

homophones. Language and Speech, 26, 81–90. reaction time analysis. Journal of Experimental Psy-Rajaram, S., & Neely, J. H. (1992). Dissociative masked chology: General, 123, 34–80.

repetition priming and word frequency effects in lex- Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Dorken, M. D. (1993). Inciden-ical decision and episodic recognition tasks. Journal tally, things in general are particularly determined:of Memory and Language, 31, 152–182. An episodic-processing account of implicit learning.

Salasoo, A., Shiffrin, R. M., & Feustel, T. C. (1985). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122,Building permanent memory codes: codification and 227–248.repetition effects in word identification. Journal of Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Jacoby, L. L. (1990). InteractionExperimental Psychology: General, 1, 57–77. of prime repetition with visual degradation: Is prim-

Scarborough, D. L., Cortese, D., & Scarborough, H. S. ing a retrieval phenomenon? Journal of Memory and(1977). Frequency and repetition effects in lexical Language, 29, 546–565.memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Hu- Whittlesea, B. W. A., Jacoby, L. L., & Girard, K. (1990).man Perception and Performance, 3, 1–17. Illusions of immediate memory: Evidence of an attri-

Scarborough, D. L., Gerard, L., & Cortese, C. (1979). butional basis for feelings of familiarity and percep-Accessing lexical memory: The transfer of word rep- tual quality. Journal of Memory and Language, 29,etition effects across task and modality. Memory & 716–732.Cognition, 7, 3–12.

Segui, J., & Grainger, J. (1990). Priming word recognition (Received August 21, 1996)(Revision received November 21, 1996)with orthographic neighbors: Effects of relative


Documents

Masked Repetition Priming of Words and Nonwords: Evidence for … · 2005-02-18 · ough et al., 1977). If repetition priming is due To arrange priming conditions that would to facilitated