title: Semantic transparency and masked morphological priming: the case of prefixed words.
abstract: In four lexical decision experiments, we investigated masked morphological priming with Dutch prefixed words. Reliable effects of morphological relatedness were obtained with visual primes and visual targets in the absence of effects due to pure form overlap. In certain conditions, priming effects were significantly greater with semantically transparent prefixed primes (e.g., rename-name) relative to the priming effects obtained with semantically opaque prefixed words (e.g., relate-late), even with very brief (40-msec) prime durations. With visual primes and auditory targets (cross-modal priming), significant facilitation was found in all related prime conditions, independent of whether or not primes were morphologically related to targets. The results are interpreted within a bimodal hierarchical model of word recognition in which morphological effects arise through the interplay of sublexical (morpho-orthographic) and supralexical (morpho-semantic) representations. The word stimuli from this study may be downloaded as supplemental materials from http://mc.psychonomic-journals.org/content/supplemental.
authors.affiliation: Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. kevin.diependaele@ugent.be
authors.forename: Kevin
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Diependaele
authors.forename: Dominiek
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Sandra
authors.forename: Jonathan
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Grainger
mesh_terms: D001288:Attention; D006801:Humans; D010153:Paired-Associate Learning; D010470:Perceptual Masking; D010700:Phonetics; D011932:Reading; D021641:Recognition, Psychology; D012660:Semantics; D013067:Speech Perception
references.citation: Cognition. 2007 Dec;105(3):691-703
references.pmid: 17217942
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2007 Dec;19(12):1983-93
references.pmid: 17892394
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Dec;11(6):1090-8
references.pmid: 15875981
references.citation: Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2003 Feb;35(1):116-24
references.pmid: 12723786
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2002 Jun;30(4):629-36
references.pmid: 12184564
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2005 Jul;9(7):342-8
references.pmid: 15993361
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2002 Apr-Jun;81(1-3):587-600
references.pmid: 12081424
references.citation: Cognition. 2001 Nov;82(1):B35-49
references.pmid: 11672710
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1998 Sep;24(5):1238-55
references.pmid: 9747532
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2004 Jul-Sep;90(1-3):9-16
references.pmid: 15172520
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2002 Apr-Jun;81(1-3):89-102
references.pmid: 12081384
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Sep;4(9):353-361
references.pmid: 10962617
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 2007 Jul;44(4):506-21
references.pmid: 17498223
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1992 Nov;18(6):1239-50
references.pmid: 1447549
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 Nov;29(6):1256-69
references.pmid: 14622059
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2007 May;19(5):866-77
references.pmid: 17488210