Cargando…
Automaticity revisited: when print doesn't activate semantics
It is widely accepted that the presentation of a printed word “automatically” triggers processing that ends with full semantic activation. This processing, among other characteristics, is held to occur without intention, and cannot be stopped. The results of the present experiment show that this acc...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4322538/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25713553 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00117 |
_version_ | 1782356402602246144 |
---|---|
author | Labuschagne, Elsa M. Besner, Derek |
author_facet | Labuschagne, Elsa M. Besner, Derek |
author_sort | Labuschagne, Elsa M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | It is widely accepted that the presentation of a printed word “automatically” triggers processing that ends with full semantic activation. This processing, among other characteristics, is held to occur without intention, and cannot be stopped. The results of the present experiment show that this account is problematic in the context of a variant of the Stroop paradigm. Subjects named the print color of words that were either neutral or semantically related to color. When the letters were all colored, all spatially cued, and the spaces between letters were filled with characters from the top of the keyboard (i.e., 4, #, 5, %, 6, and *), color naming yielded a semantically based Stroop effect and a semantically based negative priming effect. In contrast, the same items yielded neither a semantic Stroop effect nor a negative priming effect when a single target letter was uniquely colored and spatially cued. These findings (a) undermine the widespread view that lexical-semantic activation in word reading is automatic in the sense that it occurs without intention and cannot be derailed, and (b) strengthens the case that both implicit and explicit forms of visual word recognition require spatial attention as a necessary preliminary to lexical-semantic processing. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4322538 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-43225382015-02-24 Automaticity revisited: when print doesn't activate semantics Labuschagne, Elsa M. Besner, Derek Front Psychol Psychology It is widely accepted that the presentation of a printed word “automatically” triggers processing that ends with full semantic activation. This processing, among other characteristics, is held to occur without intention, and cannot be stopped. The results of the present experiment show that this account is problematic in the context of a variant of the Stroop paradigm. Subjects named the print color of words that were either neutral or semantically related to color. When the letters were all colored, all spatially cued, and the spaces between letters were filled with characters from the top of the keyboard (i.e., 4, #, 5, %, 6, and *), color naming yielded a semantically based Stroop effect and a semantically based negative priming effect. In contrast, the same items yielded neither a semantic Stroop effect nor a negative priming effect when a single target letter was uniquely colored and spatially cued. These findings (a) undermine the widespread view that lexical-semantic activation in word reading is automatic in the sense that it occurs without intention and cannot be derailed, and (b) strengthens the case that both implicit and explicit forms of visual word recognition require spatial attention as a necessary preliminary to lexical-semantic processing. Frontiers Media S.A. 2015-02-10 /pmc/articles/PMC4322538/ /pubmed/25713553 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00117 Text en Copyright © 2015 Labuschagne and Besner. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Psychology Labuschagne, Elsa M. Besner, Derek Automaticity revisited: when print doesn't activate semantics |
title | Automaticity revisited: when print doesn't activate semantics |
title_full | Automaticity revisited: when print doesn't activate semantics |
title_fullStr | Automaticity revisited: when print doesn't activate semantics |
title_full_unstemmed | Automaticity revisited: when print doesn't activate semantics |
title_short | Automaticity revisited: when print doesn't activate semantics |
title_sort | automaticity revisited: when print doesn't activate semantics |
topic | Psychology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4322538/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25713553 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00117 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT labuschagneelsam automaticityrevisitedwhenprintdoesntactivatesemantics AT besnerderek automaticityrevisitedwhenprintdoesntactivatesemantics |