Negative PrimingVision vs. Audition

Although there have been many studies examining the negativepriming phenomenon, virtually all of the existing studies usevisual presentation studies.

In fact, there appears to be only one successful demonstration ofnegative priming using auditory stimulus presentations (i.e., Banks,Roberts, & Ciranni, 1995).

Why is there such an imbalance in the literature? Is it because:

(a) negative priming does not occur for auditory stimuli, (b) negative priming is weaker in the auditory domain, or (c) negative priming is just as strong for auditory stimuli but nobody uses auditory presentations anymore.

Non-Relative Versus Relative ProceduresMacDonald, Joordens, & Seergobin (1998)

MINUTEHOUR

HOURMONTH

MINUTEHOUR

SECONDMONTH

Non-Relative - “Name the green item”Relative - “Name the item corresponding to the longer unit of time”

Non-Relative Versus Relative ProceduresMacDonald, Joordens, & Seergobin (1998)

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

Non-Relative Relative

ControlIgnored Repetition

Rea

ctio

n T

ime

(ms)

19 ms

91 ms

PitchNon-Relative vs. Relative

The stimuli consisted of 4 (non-relative) or 8 tones (relative)selected along a frequency continuum, with two tones presented simultaneously to each of the two ears.

In the non-relative condition, participants were asked to indicatewhich tone was presented in the target ear while ignoring the non-target ear.

In the relative condition, participants were asked to indicate which ear the higher tone was played in.

In both conditions, the probe target matched the prime distractoron half the trials (ignored repetition) and not on the other half(control).

PitchNon-Relative vs. Relative

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Non-Relative Relative

ControlIgnored Repetition

Rea

ctio

n T

ime

(ms)

15 ms

110 ms

PitchNon-Relative vs. Relative

0

8

16

24

32

40

Non-Relative Relative

ControlIgnored Repetition

Err

or R

ate

(%)

3.1 %-1.5 %

TimbreNon-Relative vs. Relative

The stimuli consisted of sounds associated with either 4 (non-relative) or 8 (relative) musical instruments presented simultaneously to each of the two ears. The instruments varied in terms of their size; whistle, harmonica, flute, oboe, guitar, marimba, piano, & pipe organ

In the non-relative condition, participants were asked to indicate which instrument was presented in the target ear while ignoring the non-target ear.

In the relative condition, participants were asked to indicate which ear the sound of the larger instrument was played in.

In both conditions, the probe target matched the prime distractoron half the trials (ignored repetition) and not on the other half(control).

TimbreNon-Relative vs. Relative

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Non-Relative Relative

ControlIgnored Repetition

Rea

ctio

n T

ime

(ms)

-8 ms

248 ms

TimbreNon-Relative vs. Relative

0

8

16

24

32

40

Non-Relative Relative

ControlIgnored Repetition

Err

or R

ate

(%)

8.9 %

0.1 %

Timbre - RelativeVisual vs. Auditory

An interesting aspect of our data is that although negative-primingonly occurs for auditory presentations when the relative proceduresare used … it actually appears extremely large in that condition,perhaps even larger than negative-priming for visual stimuli.

Given this, we wanted to directly compare auditory and visual negative priming within a single experiment using relative procedures

Either the sounds of the instruments (auditory) or their names (visual)were presented to participants, and they were asked to indicate eitherthe ear or side that contained the “larger” instrument.

In the visual condition, the names of the instruments were separatedto an extent that would make mean RTs similar to the auditory context

Timbre - RelativeVisual vs. Auditory

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Visual Auditory

ControlIgnored Repetition

Rea

ctio

n T

ime

(ms)

106 ms

307 ms

Timbre - RelativeVisual vs. Auditory

0

8

16

24

32

40

Visual Auditory

ControlIgnored Repetition

Err

or R

ate

(%)

9.0 %

-2.2 %

Conclusions

Negative priming does occur for auditory stimuli, although relativeprocedures must be used to observe it reliably

This may suggest the auditory negative priming is weaker thanvisual except for the paradoxical result showing that, when relativeprocedures are used, negative priming is larger for auditory thanfor visual stimulus presentations

The implication is that in order to observe negative priming forauditory stimuli, some attention must be devoted to processing thedistractor (perhaps we are generally better able to selectively attend in the auditory domain

But when the distractor is slightly attended, the information that gets through is highly relevant to the processes that underlienegative priming

SpeculationsA Role for Memory?

Much of the recent negative priming data supports the possibility that negative priming arises as a result of mismatches with memory (see MacDonald & Joordens, in press)

Perhaps such mismatches are more salient for auditory stimulias a result of a stronger memory trace for sounds than for visuallypresented words

Clearly this possibility requires further research

If you would like a copy of this poster, it is available online at the following URL:

http:\\psych.utoronto.ca\~joordens\posters\psycho99\schmuckler