↓ Skip to main content

Not all identification tasks are born equal: testing the involvement of production processes in perceptual identification and lexical decision

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Research, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Not all identification tasks are born equal: testing the involvement of production processes in perceptual identification and lexical decision
Published in
Psychological Research, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00426-017-0852-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pietro Spataro, Daniele Saraulli, Neil W. Mulligan, Vincenzo Cestari, Marco Costanzi, Clelia Rossi-Arnaud

Abstract

The distinction between identification and production processes suggests that implicit memory should require more attention resources when there is a competition between alternative solutions during the test phase. The present two experiments assessed this hypothesis by examining the effects of divided attention (DA) at encoding on the high- and low-response-competition versions of perceptual identification (Experiment 1) and lexical decision (Experiment 2). In both experiments, words presented in the high-response-competition condition had many orthographic neighbours and at least one higher-frequency neighbour, whereas words presented in the low-response-competition condition had few orthographic neighbours and no higher-frequency neighbour. Consistent with the predictions of the identification/production distinction, Experiment 1 showed that DA reduced repetition priming in the high-, but not in the low-response-competition version of perceptual identification; in contrast, DA had comparable effects in the two versions of lexical decision (Experiments 2). These findings provide the first experimental evidence in support of the hypothesis that perceptual identification, a task nominally based on identification processes, might involve a substantive production component.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 27%
Professor 2 13%
Other 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Researcher 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 5 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 47%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Materials Science 1 7%
Unknown 5 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 March 2017.
All research outputs
#20,410,007
of 22,959,818 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#869
of 973 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,678
of 308,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#15
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,959,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 973 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 308,253 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.