title: A diffusion model account of masked versus unmasked priming: are they qualitatively different?
abstract: In the past decades, hundreds of articles have explored the mechanisms underlying priming. Most researchers assume that masked and unmasked priming are qualitatively different. For masked priming, the effects are often assumed to reflect savings in the encoding of the target stimulus, whereas for unmasked priming, it has been suggested that the effects reflect the familiarity of the prime-target compound cue. In contrast, other researchers have claimed that masked and unmasked priming reflect essentially the same core processes. In this article, we use the diffusion model (R. Ratcliff, 1978, A theory of memory retrieval, Psychological Review, Vol. 85, pp. 59-108) to account for the effects of masked and unmasked priming for identity and associatively related primes. The fits of the model led us to the following conclusion: Masked related primes give a head start to the processing of the target compared with unrelated primes, whereas unmasked priming affects primarily the quality of the lexical information.
authors: Department of Psychology, DePaul University.
authors: Pablo
authors: P
authors: Gomez
authors: Manuel
authors: M
authors: Perea
authors: Roger
authors: R
authors: Ratcliff
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D006801:Humans; D008960:Models, Psychological; D010470:Perceptual Masking / Q000502:physiology*; D011597:Psychomotor Performance / Q000502:physiology*; D060865:Repetition Priming / Q000502:physiology*; D055815:Young Adult
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1992 Nov;18(4):1174-88
references: 1431751
references: Mem Cognit. 2003 Sep;31(6):829-41
references: 14651292
references: Psychol Rev. 1988 Jul;95(3):385-408
references: 3406246
references: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2002 May;110(1):103-24
references: 12005226
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2010 Jun;17(3):369-74
references: 20551360
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2003 Sep;10(3):645-52
references: 14620359
references: J Mem Lang. 2009 Oct 1;61(3):303
references: 20161653
references: Psychol Rev. 2009 Jan;116(1):207-19
references: 19159154
references: Psychol Rev. 2004 Jan;111(1):159-82
references: 14756592
references: Psychol Rev. 2010 Jul;117(3):713-58
references: 20658851
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2011 Nov;140(4):622-36
references: 21707205
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2010 Feb;139(1):70-94
references: 20121313
references: Nat Neurosci. 2001 Jul;4(7):752-8
references: 11426233
references: Psychol Rev. 2011 Oct;118(4):570-82
references: 21823804
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007 Aug;136(3):389-413
references: 17696690
references: Brain Cogn. 2004 Jul;55(2):374-82
references: 15177817
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Jun;32(3):668-87
references: 16822131
references: J Mem Lang. 2008 Jan;58(1):140-159
references: 19122740
references: Mem Cognit. 2005 Apr;33(3):557-65
references: 16156189
references: Psychol Rev. 1985 Apr;92(2):212-25
references: 3991839
references: Exp Psychol. 2011;59(2):109-14
references: 22044790
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Sep;9(3):438-81
references: 12412886
references: PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e24974
references: 21980370
references: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2010 Jan;63(1):194-204
references: 19591077
references: Psychol Rev. 1988 Apr;95(2):238-55
references: 3375400
references: Psychol Aging. 2001 Jun;16(2):323-41
references: 11405319
references: Psychol Aging. 2004 Jun;19(2):278-89
references: 15222821
references: Psychol Rev. 2000 Oct;107(4):786-823
references: 11089407
references: Behav Res Methods. 2005 Feb;37(1):65-70
references: 16097345
references: Psychol Rev. 1974 Mar;81(2):99-118
references: 4817613
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2000 Dec;7(4):668-77
references: 11206208
references: Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004 Aug;36(3):402-7
references: 15641430
references: Psychol Rev. 1999 Apr;106(2):261-300
references: 10378014