| Title |
Eyes wide open: Pupil size as a proxy for inhibition in the masked-priming paradigm
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13421-015-0577-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jason Geller, Mary L. Still, Alison L. Morris |
| Abstract |
A core assumption underlying competitive-network models of word recognition is that in order for a word to be recognized, the representations of competing orthographically similar words must be inhibited. This inhibitory mechanism is revealed in the masked-priming lexical-decision task (LDT) when responses to orthographically similar word prime-target pairs are slower than orthographically different word prime-target pairs (i.e., inhibitory priming). In English, however, behavioral evidence for inhibitory priming has been mixed. In the present study, we utilized a physiological correlate of cognitive effort never before used in the masked-priming LDT, pupil size, to replicate and extend behavioral demonstrations of inhibitory effects (i.e., Nakayama, Sears, & Lupker, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1236-1260, 2008, Exp. 1). Previous research had suggested that pupil size is a reliable indicator of cognitive load, making it a promising index of lexical inhibition. Our pupillometric data replicated and extended previous behavioral findings, in that inhibition was obtained for orthographically similar word prime-target pairs. However, our response time data provided only a partial replication of Nakayama et al. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1236-1260, 2008. These results provide converging lines of evidence that inhibition operates in word recognition and that pupillometry is a useful addition to word recognition researchers' toolbox. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Turkey | 1 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 32 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 24% |
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Professor | 4 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 3 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Linguistics | 11 | 32% |
| Psychology | 10 | 29% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 12% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 12% |
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 14 March 2021.
All research outputs
#13,472,400
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#760
of 1,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,834
of 387,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#8
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 387,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.