title: Additive effects of word frequency and stimulus quality: the influence of trial history and data transformations.
abstract: A counterintuitive and theoretically important pattern of results in the visual word recognition literature is that both word frequency and stimulus quality produce large but additive effects in lexical decision performance. The additive nature of these effects has recently been called into question by Masson and Kliegl (in press), who used linear mixed effects modeling to provide evidence that the additive effects were actually being driven by previous trial history. Because Masson and Kliegl also included semantic priming as a factor in their study and recent evidence has shown that semantic priming can moderate the additivity of word frequency and stimulus quality (Scaltritti, Balota, & Peressotti, 2012), we reanalyzed data from 3 published studies to determine if previous trial history moderated the additive pattern when semantic priming was not also manipulated. The results indicated that previous trial history did not influence the joint influence of word frequency and stimulus quality. More important, and independent of Masson and Kliegl's conclusions, we also show how a common transformation used in linear mixed effects analyses to normalize the residuals can systematically alter the way in which two variables combine to influence performance. Specifically, using transformed, rather than raw reaction times, consistently produces more underadditive patterns.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Washington University in St. Louis.
authors.forename: David A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Balota
authors.forename: Andrew J
authors.initials: AJ
authors.lastname: Aschenbrenner
authors.forename: Melvin J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Yap
mesh_terms: D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology*; D060865:Repetition Priming / Q000502:physiology*; D013647:Task Performance and Analysis
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1993 Jul;19(4):813-40
references.pmid: 8345326
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2013 Jan;39(1):140-58
references.pmid: 22612169
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1982 Jan;89(1):60-94
references.pmid: 7058229
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2008 May;34(3):495-513
references.pmid: 18444751
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2013;66(1):91-107
references.pmid: 22906041
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2006 Jan;113(1):181-95; discussion 196-200
references.pmid: 16478310
references.citation: J Mem Lang. 2009 Oct 1;61(3):303
references.pmid: 20161653
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Mar;33(2):274-96
references.pmid: 17352611
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012 Jan;38(1):152-63
references.pmid: 21875252
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2000 Oct;107(4):786-823
references.pmid: 11089407
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2013 May;39(3):898-914
references.pmid: 22774856
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Dec;15(6):1201-8
references.pmid: 19001591
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2011 Nov;140(4):622-36
references.pmid: 21707205
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2001 Jan;108(1):204-56
references.pmid: 11212628
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2007 Apr;114(2):273-315
references.pmid: 17500628
references.citation: Am Sci. 1969 Winter;57(4):421-57
references.pmid: 5360276
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2013 Jul;39(4):1321-5
references.pmid: 23855551
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Mar;33(2):451-8
references.pmid: 17352625
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 May;107(2):623-49
references.pmid: 18206138