This article was downloaded by: [Fondren Library, Rice University ]On: 15 November 2014, At: 00:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of General PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgen20

An Investigation of Time Course ofCategory and Semantic PrimingSuchismita Ray aa Rutgers, The State University of New JerseyPublished online: 07 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Suchismita Ray (2008) An Investigation of Time Course of Categoryand Semantic Priming, The Journal of General Psychology, 135:2, 133-150, DOI: 10.3200/GENP.135.2.133-150

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/GENP.135.2.133-150

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

133133

The Journal of General Psychology, 2008, 135(2), 133–148Copyright © 2008 Heldref Publications

An Investigation of Time Course of Category and Semantic Priming

SUCHISMITA RAYRutgers, The State University of New Jersey

ABSTRACT. Low semantically similar exemplars in a category demonstrate the category-priming effect through priming of the category (i.e., exemplar–category–exemplar), whereas high semantically similar exemplars in the same category demonstrate the semantic-priming effect (i.e., direct activation of one high semantically similar exemplar by another). The author asked whether the category- and semantic-priming effects are based on a common memory process. She examined this question by testing the time courses of category- and semantic-priming effects. She tested participants on either category- or semantic-priming paradigm at 2 different time intervals (6 min and 42 min) by using a lexical decision task using exemplars from categories. Results showed that the time course of category priming was different from that of semantic priming. The author concludes that these 2 priming effects are based on 2 separate memory processes.

Keywords: category priming, exemplar, lexical decision, semantic priming, time course

THINKING ABOUT A PARTICULAR CONCEPT activates a specific item in the mental lexicon (i.e., a word). A person retrieves not only information about that particular word but also information related to the concept because of a spreading of activation from that particular word to other words related to it in the semantic network. As a result, related information is recognized easily. This recognition facilitation of related words is measured by using implicit memory tests that do not require conscious recollection of prior study episode (Graf, Squire, & Mandler, 1984; Ratcliff & McKoon, 1980; Tulving, Schacter, & Stark, 1982; Zeelenberg, Wagenmakers, & Raaijmakers, 2002). Priming is recognition facilitation that does not require conscious recollection; priming is unlike explicit memory that requires conscious recollection.

The author thanks Pauline McManus and Kayesha Carter for their valuable assistance in data collection and Benjamin Martin Bly, John Ceraso, and Steven Hanson for their insightful comments and suggestions.

Address correspondence to Suchismita Ray, Rutgers University, 607 Allison Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA; shmita@rci.rutgers.edu (e-mail).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 00:

58 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

134 The Journal of General Psychology

Researchers have defined semantic-priming effects as word relatedness effects due to high semantic similarity (i.e., direct activation of one semantically similar exemplar by another; James, 1890; Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1971; Neely, 1977; Russell & Storms, 1955). Although researchers have paid much attention to the semantic-priming phenomenon, they have devoted less attention to test-ing word relatedness effects due to categorical coordination or category priming (i.e., whether studying some exemplars from a category facilitates recognition of nonstudied low semantically similar exemplars within a category; e.g., whether grape primes pineapple). In a recent study, Ray and Bly (2008) demonstrated the phenomenon of category priming by showing that semantic processing of category exemplars at encoding produced priming of nonstudied exemplars of a category through both exemplar-to-exemplar (i.e., semantic) priming and exemplar-to-category-to-exemplar (i.e., category) priming. Their study demon-strated the semantic and category-priming effects in the context of a category (Ray & Bly, 2008). Low semantically similar exemplars in a category demonstrat-ed the category-priming effect through priming of the category (i.e., exemplar– category–exemplar), whereas high semantically similar exemplars in the same category demonstrated the semantic-priming effect (i.e., direct activation of one high semantically similar exemplar by another).

The question arises whether the category- and semantic-priming effects are based on one common memory process or separate memory processes. If these two priming effects are based on two separate memory processes, then they must demonstrate different characteristics. One way to examine this issue is to study the time courses of category and semantic priming. If the time course of category priming is different from that of semantic priming, then these two priming effects are based on two separate memory processes. Conversely, if the time courses of category and semantic priming show the same characteristics, then category- and semantic-priming effects are based on a common memory process.

Time Course and Memory Processes

Several researchers have used the time course as a variable to distinguish between perceptual priming (e.g., word fragment completion or word identifica-tion) and semantic priming and also between priming and explicit memory mea-sures (Dannenbring & Briand, 1982; Hashtroudi, Ferguson, Rappold, & Chrosniak, 1988; Jacoby & Dallas, 1981; Squire, Shimamura, & Graf, 1987; Tulving et al., 1982). Tulving et al. tested whether the priming effect in word-fragment comple-tion is different from that in recognition memory. Results showed that participants’ recognition accuracy declined greatly over a 7-day retention interval, whereas the priming effects were unchanged. Jacoby and Dallas demonstrated experimental dissociations between priming and recognition as a function of delay. They sug-gested that priming is maintained over a long period, whereas performance in the recognition test declines during this period.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 00:

58 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Hashtroudi et al. (1988) tested the time course of partial word identifica-tion and recognition over a 24-hr period. Hashtroudi et al. predicted that if word identification and word recognition are based on the same memory process, then the time course of forgetting would be identical for these two tests, whereas if word identification and word recognition are mediated by different memory pro-cesses, then the time course of forgetting would be different for these two tests. Results showed a significant effect of delay in the recognition condition and no effect of delay in the identification condition. Using the time courses of priming and recognition memory, the results of previous studies together suggested that priming (e.g., word fragment completion or word identification) and recognition memory are based on different memory processes.

Dannenbring and Briand (1982) conducted experiments to explore the relation between semantic-priming and repetition-priming effects by using a lexical decision (LD; i.e., word and nonword decision) task. They measured the persistence of both effects. Results showed that facilitation due to semantic priming persisted briefly, whereas the word repetition effect persisted for a long time. They concluded that the semantic- and repetition-priming effects are caused by different memory processes.

Squire et al. (1987) provided further evidence of the use of time course of priming to explain different memory processes. Squire et al. tested the duration of priming effect by using a word fragment completion test to explain memory functioning of normal and amnesic individuals. In comparison with normal par-ticipants, amnesic participants showed a smaller and shorter lasting word comple-tion effect. Squire et al. suggested that long-lasting word completion performance shown by the normal participants may have been operated by declarative or elaborative retrieval processes that are impaired in amnesic patients.

To summarize, researchers have used time courses of priming and recogni-tion memory to explain how human memory functioning can be based on dif-ferent memory processes. The existing literature suggests that semantic priming, repetition priming, and recognition memory are operated by different processes. Still, no researcher has examined the memory processes underlying semantic- and category-priming effects in the context of a category.

A few researchers have investigated the time course of category priming by using the category exemplar generation task that is not purely implicit in nature (Hamann, 1990; Rappold & Hashtroudi, 1991). In a typical category exemplar generation task, participants study exemplars from different prime categories by analyzing their semantic (i.e., meaning) characteristics. During the test phase, participants are given names of different categories and asked to generate eight exemplars from those categories. This instruction requires explicit retrieval and contradicts the definition of an implicit task. In the category exemplar genera-tion task, researchers measure priming by counting the number of exemplars that appeared in the generation task that belong to the selected exemplars from the primed categories and comparing the primed and unprimed categories on the particular measurement.

Ray 135

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 00:

58 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

136 The Journal of General Psychology

Hamann (1990) tested category exemplar generation priming over three retention intervals: 10 min, 30 min, and 90 min. Although the amount of prim-ing of the 30-min delay was almost half of that of the 10-min delay, the 90-min delay still showed significant priming. Rappold and Hashtroudi (1991) tested category exemplar generation priming immediately, 45 min after study, or 24 hr after study. Results showed a significant amount of priming at all intervals. Thus, the extant literature suggests that a long-term category-priming effect happens through activation of the category by using a task that is not completely implicit in nature.

Dannenbring and Briand (1982) studied the time course of the semantic priming by using semantically related words (e.g., ocean–sea) and an LD task that used pronounceable nonwords. Significant semantic priming was observed only when no intervening items were present in between the study and the test words. Joordens and Becker (1997) showed that semantic priming persists even when eight intervening items are introduced in between the study and test words, by using high semantically similar words (e.g., nickel–penny) and an LD task in a pseudohomophone nonwords background. Thus, an LD task that uses a pseudohomophone nonwords background can show a long-term semantic-priming effect.

Present Study

In the present study, I examined the time courses of semantic and category priming by using exemplars from a category to test their underlying memory process or processes. The category- and semantic-priming effects that I exam-ined in this study were implicit in nature. I used a between-subjects design to determine the time courses of category and semantic priming by using exemplars from a category and an LD task in a pseudohomophone background. Low and high semantically similar exemplars selected from categories were used in the category- and semantic-priming conditions, respectively. In each priming condi-tion, I tested two groups of participants: one group 6 min after the study phase and the second group 42 min after the study phase. To test the time course of category priming, I presented exemplars from a particular category in a blocked manner during the study phase because previous research showed that blocked presentation of category exemplars during study produces a large amount of category priming (Ray & Bly, 2008).

During the study phase, participants gave a liking rating on individual exemplars. During test phase, they gave word or nonword decisions on nonstudied exemplars belonging to the same category, baseline exemplars, distractor exemplars, and nonwords. I hypothesized a significant amount of category and semantic priming in the 6-min interval groups. The measure of category priming and semantic priming in the 42-min-interval groups was exploratory.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 00:

58 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Method

Participants

Participants were 48 native English speakers enrolled in psychology classes at a U.S. university. Of them, 24 individuals participated in each priming condi-tion: 12 participated in the 6-min interval condition, and 12 participated in the 42-min interval condition. Individuals who participated in both priming conditions acquired credits to fulfill their course requirements. Individuals in the 42-min interval conditions also participated in a lottery for a cash prize.

Materials

I selected three middle-familiarity categories (Fruit, Sport, and Furniture) from the Battig and Montague (1969) norms. Fruit, Sport, and Furniture served as critical categories. From Fruit and Furniture, I selected 27 exemplars, and I selected 26 from Sport. These exemplars consisted of both middle- and low-familiarity exemplars. From each critical category, I selected Set A, Set B, and Set C exemplars. These were selected so that Set A and Set B exemplars were highly semantically similar, and Set A and Set C exemplars and Set B and Set C exemplars were low semantically similar (see Appendices A and B). Semantic similarity was determined on the basis of the results of multidimensional scaling analyses (Ray & Bly, 2008).

I selected low semantically similar exemplars from each category to exam-ine the time course of category priming. I selected high semantically similar exemplars to examine the time course of semantic priming. I selected three other middle-familiarity categories (Weapon, Part of Speech, and Profession) from the Battig and Montague (1969) norms as baseline categories. I used 15 distractor exemplars during the study phase and 15 distractor exemplars during the test phase. The distractor categories used during study (e.g., Unit of Time, Alco-holic Beverage) or during testing (e.g., Disease, Toy) were not used as critical or baseline categories in this experiment. The distractor categories were high-, middle-, and low-familiarity categories from the Battig and Montague norms. I used 45 pseudohomophones (e.g., brane) in this experiment. The materials were explained in detail in Ray and Bly (2008).

Procedure

Category priming condition (6- and 42-min interval groups). For both groups, the study list comprised 30 exemplars. These included 15 study exemplars compris-ing either 5 Set A or 5 Set B exemplars from each of the three critical categories and 15 distractor exemplars from 15 distractor categories. I presented the 15 distractor exemplars in the study list to minimize any implicit category activation for the semantic-priming groups. I presented the 30 exemplars from the study list

Ray 137

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 00:

58 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

138 The Journal of General Psychology

sequentially for 5 s to the participants in two different orders. While viewing each exemplar on the computer screen, participants gave a liking rating on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (least liking) to 7 (most liking). The groups studied the critical category exemplars presented to them in a blocked order. For example, 5 Fruit exemplars were presented sequentially, followed by 5 Sport exemplars presented sequentially, followed by 5 Furniture exemplars presented sequentially, and followed by 15 distractor exemplars presented sequentially.

In each group, 6 of the 12 participants studied Set A exemplars and were then tested on Set C exemplars, whereas the rest of the participants studied Set B exemplars and were tested on Set C exemplars. Each participant was tested individually. Also, I randomly assigned each participant to one of the four experi-mental conditions. After the study phase was complete, participants in the 6-min interval conditions wrote different country names on a piece of paper. They were allowed 5 min to finish the task. This task served as a distractor task and was administered to minimize participants’ tendency to rehearse previously presented material during study. At the end of 5 min, participants were given a practice task wherein they familiarized themselves with the word and nonword decision task. The practice phase lasted 1 min.

Both groups of participants were tested on three test blocks consisting of 30 exemplars in each block. The 30 exemplars in each block consisted of 5 test exem-plars from a particular critical category (Set C), 5 matched baseline exemplars, 5 distractor exemplars, and 15 pseudohomophones. Participants performed an LD task in a pseudohomophone background. I counterbalanced the order of presenta-tion of the three test blocks and presented items from each block sequentially in a random order. Participants indicated whether each item was a word or nonword (i.e., lexical status) by pressing one of two letters on a keyboard and made their decisions as quickly as possible without making too many errors. Pressing a key terminated the item, and then the next item appeared. I recorded reaction time (RT) data from each participant. Participants in the 6-min interval group per-formed the LD task immediately after the distractor task, whereas participants in the 42-min interval group left the test room after the distractor task. They were instructed to return to the testing room at the scheduled time to participate in the test phase. Immediately after the completion of the test phase, participants said what they believed was the purpose of the experiment and made any comments they chose to regarding the experiment. Last, I explained the purpose of the experiment to them.

Semantic priming condition (6- and 42-min interval groups). For both groups, the study list comprised 30 exemplars. These included 15 study exemplars com-prising either 5 Set A exemplars or 5 Set B exemplars from each of the three critical categories and 15 distractor exemplars from 15 distractor categories. Both groups studied the exemplars in a random order wherein no two exemplars from a particular critical category were presented consecutively (e.g., cheery, minute,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 00:

58 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

alcohol, table, second, diving). I presented the 15 distractor exemplars in the study list to minimize any implicit category activation for these two groups. The study procedure was the same as in the category-priming groups.

Of the 12 participants, 6 studied Set A exemplars and were tested on Set B exemplars, whereas the rest of the participants studied Set B exemplars and were tested on Set A exemplars. I randomly assigned participants to Set A or Set B study exemplars. After the study phase was complete, I instructed participants in the 6-min interval group to write different country names on a piece of paper. They were allowed 5 min to finish the task. This task served as a distractor task and was administered to minimize participants’ tendency to rehearse previously presented material during study. At the end of 5 min, participants used a prac-tice task to familiarize themselves with the word or nonword decision task. The practice phase lasted 1 min.

Both groups of participants were tested on three test blocks consisting of 30 exemplars in each block. The 30 exemplars in each block consisted of 5 test exemplars from a particular critical category (Set B or Set A), 5 matched base-line exemplars, 5 distractor exemplars, and 15 pseudohomophones. Participants performed an LD task in a pseudohomophone background. I counterbalanced the order of presentation of the three test blocks and presented items from each block sequentially in a random order. Participants indicated whether each item was a word or nonword (i.e., lexical status) by pressing one of two letters on a keyboard and made their decisions as quickly as possible without making too many errors. Pressing a key terminated the item, and then the next item appeared. I recorded RT data from each participant.

Participants in the 6-min interval group performed the LD task immediately after the distractor task, whereas participants in the 42-min interval group left the test room after the distractor task. They returned to the testing room at the sched-uled time to participate in the test phase. Immediately after the end of the test phase, participants said what they believed to be the purpose of the experiment and made any comments on the experiment. Afterward, I explained the purpose of the experiment to them.

I measured the amount of priming by subtracting the mean RT to the critical exemplars from that to the baseline exemplars for both groups in each priming condition. I used a 2 × 2 factorial design to analyze the data.

Results

I included only correct data of RT to test and baseline exemplars in the priming analyses for both category-priming and semantic-priming conditions. Previous researchers also used only correct RT data to analyze priming data (Wible et al., 2006; Yeates & Enrile, 2005). I planned to eliminate any RT that was less than 399 ms or more than 2000 ms; however, no RTs occurred out-side this range. For the category-priming condition, participants in the 6-min

Ray 139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 00:

58 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

140 The Journal of General Psychology

interval group generated 3.28% errors, and participants in the 42-min interval group generated 3.57% errors. Mean percentage of errors between these two groups was not significant, t(22) = –1.20, p > .10. For the semantic-priming condition, participants in the 6-min interval group generated 3.34% errors, and participants in the 42-min interval group generated 3.62% errors. Mean percent-age of errors between these two groups was not significant, t(22) = –1.31, p > .10. Because error rates were consistent over conditions and across groups, I excluded them from the analyses (see Carson & Burton, 2001).

I performed a 2 (type of priming: category vs. semantic) × 2 (interval: 6- vs. 42-min) analysis of variance on the amount of category and semantic priming for 6- and 42-min intervals. The type of priming was not significant, F(1, 44) = 0.57, p > .25. The interval effect was marginally significant, F(1, 44) = 3.48, p = .07, where the 6-min interval groups showed a larger amount of priming than did the 42-min interval groups. The type of priming by interval interaction was significant, F(1, 44) = 3.95, p < .05.

I calculated the amount of category facilitation by subtracting the mean RT to the test exemplars from that to their matched baseline exemplars. As I noted earlier, test exemplars refer to the nonstudied exemplars from a previously studied category, and the difference in the mean RT measures between test and baseline exemplars were from the LD task. The 6-min-interval group showed 93-ms cat-egory facilitation, whereas this facilitation was 5 ms for the 42-min-interval group (see Table 1). Results indicated that the 6-min category-priming group showed significantly more priming in comparison with the 42-min category-priming group, one-tailed t(22) = 1.73, p < .05. For the 6-min interval group, a paired

TABLE 1. Means and Standard Deviations of the Amount of Category and Semantic Priming Over 6- and 42-min Intervals

Priming type

Category Semantic

Measure M SD M SD

6 min 93 msb 40 ms 65 msa 25 ms42 min 5 msd 3 ms 67 msc 19 ms

Note. Amount of priming in each interval group calculated by subtracting M RT to test exemplars from that of baseline exemplars. Groups in the category priming condition used Set C test exemplars and their equivalent baseline exemplars, whereas Set A or Set B test exemplars and their equivalent baseline exemplars were used by the groups in the semantic priming condition.a873–808 ms. b928–835 ms. c865–798 ms. d911–906 ms. a,cdo not differ. b,ddiffer at p < .05.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 00:

58 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

t test showed that the mean RT to the test exemplars was significantly faster than that to their respective baseline exemplars, t(11) = –3.33, p < .005. For the 42-min interval group, there was no significant difference between the test and baseline exemplars in terms of RT, t(11) = .69, p > .40. Mean RTs to the baseline exemplars across the groups did not differ significantly, t(22) = 0.63, p > .42.

I calculated the amount of semantic facilitation by subtracting the mean RT to the test exemplars from that to their matched baseline exemplars. The 6-min interval group showed 65-ms semantic facilitation, whereas this facilitation was 67 ms for the 42-min interval group (see Table 1). Results showed that the 6- and 42-min semantic-priming groups did not differ in the amount of priming, t(22) = 0.99, p > .10. For the 6-min interval group, a paired t test showed that the mean RT to the test exemplars was significantly faster than the mean RT to their respective baseline exemplars, t(11) = 2.19, p < .05. For the 42-min interval group, a paired t test showed that the mean RT to the test exemplars was significantly faster than the mean RT to their matched baseline exemplars, t(11) = 1.97, p < .05. Mean RTs to the baseline exemplars across the groups did not differ significantly, t(22) = 0.83, p > .30.

Discussion

Results showed a significant amount of category priming in the 6-min interval group, but not the 42-min interval group, whereas I observed a signifi-cant amount of semantic priming in both 6-min and 42-min interval groups. This supports my hypothesis that a significant amount of category-priming and semantic-priming effect would be observed in the 6-min interval groups. The category priming effect, but not the semantic priming effect, decreased over the course of 42 min. The time course of category priming was different from the time course of semantic priming, consistent with the prediction that these priming effects are based on two separate memory processes. This conclusion is supported by existing literature in which researchers used the time courses of semantic priming, repetition priming, and recognition memory to explain how human memory functioning can be based on different memory processes (Dannenbring & Briand, 1982; Hashtroudi et al., 1988; Jacoby & Dallas, 1981; Squire et al., 1987; Tulving et al., 1982).

Ray and Bly (2008) demonstrated category- and semantic-priming effects in the context of a category. In their study, the low semantically similar exemplars in a category demonstrated the category-priming effect through priming of the cat-egory (i.e., exemplar–category–exemplar), whereas the high semantically similar exemplars in the same category demonstrated the semantic-priming effect (i.e., direct activation of one high semantically similar exemplar by another). In the present experiment, the 6-min interval group in the category-priming condition showed 93-ms priming. This finding was a result of priming between low seman-tically similar exemplars in a category through activation of the category (i.e.,

Ray 141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 00:

58 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

142 The Journal of General Psychology

grape–Fruit–pineapple). The 65- and 67-ms facilitations in the 6- and 42-min interval groups, respectively, in the semantic-priming condition show further evidence of semantic priming due to direct activation between high semantically similar exemplars in a category (grape–raisin). In this experiment, both category- and semantic -priming effects have been explained in the context of a category. Thus, the present study replicates Ray and Bly’s study and extends it by examining the time course of category and semantic priming at 6- and 42-min intervals.

The results of the present study and that of Ray and Bly (2008) showed a significant amount of semantic priming at all delay intervals (immediate, 6-min, and 42-min) and a significant amount of category priming at the immediate and 6-min intervals, but not at the 42-min interval. That there was no decrease in the amount of semantic facilitation over the 42-min interval supports the findings of Joordens and Becker (1997). Joordens and Becker found a long-term semantic-priming effect wherein primes and targets were separated by eight intervening items, by using high semantically similar primes and targets (e.g., grape–raisin) and an LD task that required semantic processing of primes and targets. In the present experiment, I observed a long-term semantic effect, by using pseudo-homophones as nonwords in the LD task.

This finding also supports the results of Davelaar and Coltheart (1975) and Foss (1982), who found a semantic-priming effect despite the appearance of intervening items between the primes and targets. Using a phoneme-monitoring task, Foss demonstrated that in sentences (or in a series of related sentences), the effects of semantic relatedness on processing a later item do not disappear with the distance between the related items. Foss’s finding contrasts sharply with Dannenbring and Briand (1982), who found that the facilitation caused by semantic priming disappears after a few seconds. According to Joordens and Becker (1997), the reason for lack of a semantic-priming effect in Dannenbring and Briand’s study is the nature of the retrieval task. According to Joordens and Becker, an LD task in a pronounceable nonwords background is not semantically oriented to demonstrating any long-term priming effect.

Rappold and Hashtroudi (1991) found a significant amount of category exemplar generation priming even after 24-hr delay. Hamann (1990) still observed a significant amount of priming at 90-min delay, although the category exemplar generation priming declined extensively after a 40-min delay. In the existing literature, the category-priming effect shown by the category exemplar generation task is not purely implicit in nature. This happens because research-ers provide participants with the name of the category at the test phase and ask them to generate exemplars. This procedure causes them to activate the category explicitly. Thus, any priming effect found for the critical exemplars is due to implicit and explicit activation of the category.

Two manipulations in the present study reflected implicit category- and semantic-priming effects. First, I separated the study and test exemplars into two lists. This separation introduced many intervening items to diminish any explicit

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 00:

58 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

attentional component of the priming effect (Hines, Czerwinski, Sawyer, & Dwyer, 1986; Ray, Bates, & Bly, 2004). Second, participants were never exposed to the category names during the experiment to minimize any explicit processing of the category exemplars. Had I included actual category names at test (e.g., Fruit), the RT measures would have reflected explicit category priming, in addition to implicit category priming. In the future, researchers can incorporate an explicit instruc-tion group to determine whether participants were using any explicit connection between the study and test words during the test phase. In the present study, by my using an implicit task, no category-priming effect was observed in the 42-min interval group.

In the literature, evidence of data-driven priming (i.e., priming based on perceptual processing, but not semantic processing) is relatively long lasting. Using an LD task in a background of unpronounceable and pronounceable non-words, Scarborough, Cortese, and Scarborough (1977) found that word repetition effect, which is based on data-driven priming, can persist over a 2-day delay. In the present experiment, an LD task in a pseudohomophones background demon-strated category- and semantic-priming effects based on conceptual or semantic processing. This is consistent with the existing research showing that an LD task in a background of pseudohomophone nonwords, but not unpronounceable and pronounceable nonwords, is completely based on semantic processing (Joordens & Becker, 1997; Smolensky, 1986). Therefore, I conclude that the conceptually driven priming effect that is caused by direct activation of one word by another word (e.g., grape–raisin) is relatively long lasting in comparison with any con-ceptually driven priming effect operated through an intermediate category node (e.g., grape–Fruit–pineapple). Any facilitation caused by this intermediate cat-egory node can persist for a few minutes but then declines rapidly.

Thus, considering the present results, I suggest that category- and semantic- priming effects are based on two separate memory processes, because they demonstrate different characteristics. I found that category- and semantic- priming effects are based on conceptual processing and that the factor that separates these two priming effects is whether the category node is activated. I assume that the category- and semantic-priming effects operate in the same semantic memory system. Both incorporate category and exemplar relations but are based on two separate memory processes. The semantic-priming effect is caused by direct activation, whereas the category-priming effect involves activa-tion of the superordinate category node. A more direct test of the systems view would involve examining whether category- and semantic-priming effects can be observed by performing perceptual and conceptual processing of category exem-plars at study and test phases. On the basis of the systems approach, I expect to see different time course and priming (category vs. semantic) effects for perceptual and conceptual processing of category exemplars at study and test phases.

In the present study, the LD task that I used to assess implicit category and semantic priming was based on conceptual processing. This agrees with

Ray 143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 00:

58 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

144 The Journal of General Psychology

the recent memory-processing view suggesting that implicit memory tasks can involve conceptual processing (Brown & Mitchell, 1994; Gibson, 2004; see Newell & Andrews, 2004). This view is contrary to an earlier memory-processing theory that posits that perceptual processes are preeminent in implicit memory tasks and that conceptual processes are preeminent in explicit memory tasks (Roediger, Weldon, & Challis, 1989).

The present results can also be explained by using the transfer appropriate processing (TAP) view of memory. According to the TAP view, implicit or explic-it recall is a function of recapitulation of processes at study and at test. In the present study, I observed a significant amount of category priming in the 6-min interval group and a significant amount of semantic priming in the 6- and 42-min interval groups, by matching the processing demands of exemplars at study and test phases. Although the TAP view explains to some extent the category-priming and semantic-priming effect, it cannot explain the different time course for the category priming and semantic priming. Activation of the category node in the category-priming group, but not the semantic-priming group, can only explain the different time course.

AUTHOR NOTE

Suchismita Ray is an assistant research professor at the Center of Alcohol Studies at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Her research interests are memory processing, addiction, and brain imaging.

REFERENCES

Battig, W. F., & Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph, 80, 1–43.

Brown, A. S., & Mitchell, D. B. (1994). A reevaluation of semantic versus nonsemantic processing in implicit memory. Memory and Cognition, 22, 533–541.

Carson, D. R., & Burton, A. M. (2001). Semantic priming of person recognition: Categori-cal priming may be weaker form of the associative priming effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 1155–1179.

Dannenbring, G. L., & Briand, K. (1982). Semantic priming and the word repetition effect in a lexical decision task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36, 435–444.

Davelaar, E., & Coltheart, M. (1975). Effects of interpolated items on the association effect in lexical decision tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 6, 269–272.

Foss, D. J. (1982). A discourse on semantic priming. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 590–607.Gibson, J. M. (2004). Priming problem solving with conceptual processing of relevant

objects. The Journal of General Psychology, 131, 118–135.Graf, P., Squire, L. R., & Mandler, G. (1984). The information that amnesic patients do not for-

get. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 164–178.Hamann, S. B. (1990). Level-of-processing effects in conceptually driven implicit tasks.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 970–977.Hashtroudi, S., Ferguson, S. A., Rappold, V. A., & Chrosniak, L. D. (1988). Data-driven

and conceptually driven processes in partial-word identification and recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 749–757.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 00:

58 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Hines, D., Czerwinski, M., Sawyer, P. K., & Dwyer, M. (1986). Automatic semantic prim-ing: Effect of category exemplar level and word association level. Journal of Experimen-tal Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 370–379.

Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 306–340.

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.Joordens, S., & Becker, S. (1997). The long and short of semantic priming effects in lexi-

cal decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1083–1105.

Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 227–234.

Neely, J. H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhi-bitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 226–254.

Newell, B. R., & Andrews, S. (2004). Levels of processing effects on implicit and explicit memory tasks: Using question position to investigate the lexical-processing hypothesis. Experimental Psychology, 51, 132–144.

Rappold, V. A., & Hashtroudi, S. (1991). Does organization improve priming? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 103–114.

Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1980). Priming in item recognition: Evidence for the prepo-sitional structure of sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 403–417.

Ray, S., Bates, M. E., & Bly, B. M. (2004). Alcohol’s dissociation of implicit and explicit memory processes: Implications of a parallel distributed processing model of semantic priming. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 12, 118–125.

Ray, S., & Bly, B. M. (2008). Two routes for activation in the priming of categorical coor-dinates. The Journal of General Psychology, 135, 65–83.

Roediger, H. L., Weldon, M. S., & Challis, B. H. (1989). Explaining dissociations between implicit and explicit measures of retention: A processing account. In H. L. Roediger & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honor of Endel Tulving (pp. 3–14). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Russell, W. A., & Storms, L. H. (1955). Implicit verbal chaining in paired-associate learn-ing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 287–293.

Scarborough, D. L., Cortese, C., & Scarborough, H. S. (1977). Frequency and repetition effects in lexical memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 3, 1–17.

Smolensky, P. (1986). Foundations of harmony theory: Cognitive dynamic systems and the subsymbolic theory of information processing. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland, & PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Vol. I (pp. 191–281). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books.

Squire, L. R., Shimamura, A. P., & Graf, P. (1987). Strength and duration of priming effects in normal subjects and amnesic patients. Neuropsychologia, 25, 195–210.

Tulving, E., Schacter, D. L., & Stark, H. A. (1982). Priming effects in word-fragment com-pletion are independent of recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 336–342.

Wible, C. G., Han, S. D., Spencer, M. H., Kubicki, M., Niznikiewicz, M. H., Jolesz, F. A., et al. (2006). Connectivity among semantic associates: An fMRI study of semantic priming. Brain and Language, 97, 294–305.

Yeates, K. O., & Enrile, B. G. (2005). Implicit and explicit memory in children with con-genital and acquired brain disorder. Neuropsychology, 19, 618–628.

Ray 145

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 00:

58 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

146 The Journal of General Psychology

Zeelenberg, R., Wagenmakers, E. M., & Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (2002). Priming in implicit memory tasks: Prior study causes enhanced discriminality, not only bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 38–47.

APPENDIX AHigh Semantically Similar and Low Semantically Similar Exemplars

From Critical Categories

High semantically similar exemplars

Set A Set B

Cherry BlueberryGrape RaisinPlum TomatoStrawberry RaspberryPrune FigSoccer RugbyLacrosse PoloWrestling FencingVolleyball BadmintonHockey GolfDesk BookcaseCoffee table End tableBureau Chest of drawersCabinet China closetDresser Night table

Low semantically similar exemplars

Set A Set C

Cherry LemonGrape LimePlum PeachStrawberry GrapefruitPrune PineappleSoccer SwimmingLacrosse SailingWrestling BoatingVolleyball SurfingHockey DivingDesk RugCoffee table StoveBureau RefrigeratorCabinet TelevisionDresser Lounge

(appendix continues)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 00:

58 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Ray 147

APPENDIX BBaseline Exemplars Equivalent to High and Low Semantically

Similar Exemplars

Baseline exemplars equivalent to high semantically similar exemplars (Set A or Set B)

FarmerProfessorBankerTeacherPlumberBayonetArrowIce pickSpearBlackjackPhrasesConsonantIndirect objectInfinitiveGerund

(appendix continues)

APPENDIX A (continued)

Set B Set A

Blueberry LemonRaisin LimeTomato PeachRaspberry GrapefruitFig PineappleRugby SwimmingPolo SailingFencing BoatingBadmitton SurfingGolf DivingBookcase RugEnd table StoveChest of drawers RefrigeratorChina closet TelevisionNight table Lounge

Note. Exemplars were selected using multidimensional scaling analyses.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 00:

58 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Manuscript submitted July 5, 2006Revision accepted for publication December 18, 2006

APPENDIX B (continued)

Baseline exemplars equivalent to Set C exemplars

MailmanLawyerMinisterJanitorSailorSwitchbladeCannonSwordBazookaBombVoiceParticipateModifierInvestigationLips

Note. Critical and baseline category exemplars matched in terms of familiarity and word length.

148 The Journal of General Psychology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 00:

58 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

� �� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� � ����������� �� ���������������������������������������������������������� �� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� � ����������������� �� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� �� ����������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������

�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

������ ��� ������� ���� ������������������������������������������ �������������� � ��� �������������������������� ��� ������ ����������������������

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 00:

58 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Hernandez family found a way out of poverty – it started by coming in to a family literacy program. No surprise, given that a majority of adults who learn with theirkids improve in everything from language skills to getting their GED. Together, theylearn “literacy” isn’t just about reading and writing, it’s about developing skills –skills they use for a better life. Know a family we can help? Or would you like tohelp? Call 1-877-FAMLIT-1, or visit us at www.famlit.org.

National Center for Family Literacy

The best way out is by coming in.

5.75"

10.5

"

201535-Av1

NOTE TO PUB: DO NOT PRINT INFO BELOW, FOR ID ONLY. NO ALTERING OF AD COUNCIL PSAs.Use the space between the Ad Council logo & Knight Foundation logo for localization

National Center For Family Literacy - Newspaper - B&W - LITLIT-N-06214-D “Hallway ” Localizable 5 3/4 x 10 1/2 85 line screen film at Schawk: (212) 689-8585 Ref#: 201535

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 00:

58 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014