| Title |
Evaluative priming in a semantic flanker task: ERP evidence for a mutual facilitation explanation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13415-013-0206-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Melanie Schmitz, Dirk Wentura, Thorsten A. Brinkmann |
| Abstract |
In semantic flanker tasks, target categorization response times are affected by the semantic compatibility of the flanker and target. With positive and negative category exemplars, we investigated the influence of evaluative congruency (whether flanker and target share evaluative valence) on the flanker effect, using behavioral and electrophysiological measures. We hypothesized a moderation of the flanker effect by evaluative congruency on the basis of the assumption that evaluatively congruent concepts mutually facilitate each other's activation (see Schmitz & Wentura in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 38:984-1000, 2012). Applying an onset delay of 50 ms for the flanker, we aimed to decrease the facilitative effect of an evaluatively congruent flanker on target encoding and, at the same time, increase the facilitative effect of an evaluatively congruent target on flanker encoding. As a consequence of increased flanker activation in the case of evaluative congruency, we expected a semantically incompatible flanker to interfere with the target categorization to a larger extent (as compared with an evaluatively incongruent pairing). Confirming our hypotheses, the flanker effect significantly depended on evaluative congruency, in both mean response times and N2 mean amplitudes. Thus, the present study provided behavioral and electrophysiological evidence for the mutual facilitation of evaluatively congruent concepts. Implications for the representation of evaluative connotations of semantic concepts are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 15 | 52% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 10% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,746,742
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#583
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,982
of 200,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#11
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 200,925 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.