Auditory priming in an implicit memory task that emphasizes surface processing

Auditory priming in an implicit memory task that emphasizes surface processing Meehan Pilotti

Tag layer of the DHSS Meta-Tagging Project. The article text is reproduced from the staged copy named in sourceDesc and is not altered; the tags are held separately in standOff so that overlapping and nested spans are preserved.

Auditory priming in an implicit memory task that emphasizes surface processing 1996 Psychonomic bulletin & review 10.3758/bf03214553 Meehan1996-auditory-priming-in-an-implicit-memory-task Meehan1996-auditory-priming-in-an-implicit-memory-task.txt, the project's staged copy 2d7851506f5231132c3493d4ef94598a764a1db6 not-redistributable cognitive-psychology

the paper's own words

the tag layer; a sentence written by the tagger about the paper, always anchored to a quotation but not itself a quotation

0 spans located by searching the stored text for the quote's exact words, allowing any whitespace between them mechanism Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. auditory repetition priming Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. behavioural-experiment behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. mechanisms Processing an increasingly varied and less familiar set of voices consumes additional perceptual operations, and those extra operations break the ability of voice-plus-word repetition to speed the response. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. mechanisms When encoding must handle different and progressively less familiar voices, repetition of voice and word stops being sufficient to support priming. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. the speaker's voice assigned to each word was counterbalanced across participants so that every word was uttered equally often by each of the four speakers eliminates: that an auditory priming effect belongs to a particular voice rather than to the word · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. auditory priming auditory priming Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. implicit memory implicit memory Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. phoneme monitoring phoneme monitoring Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. voice voice Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. acoustic variability acoustic variability Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. word frequency word frequency Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. THE CONCLUSION IS ABOUT THE INSTRUMENT, NOT ABOUT MEMORY: `the significance of voice in implicit memory is dependent on the level of processing required by the task and the acoustic environment.` Whether voice matters to implicit memory has no answer on its own - it has an answer per task. So two studies of `auditory priming` that used different tasks are not measuring the same thing, and a corpus that pools their effect sizes is pooling answers to different questions. The paper was designed to demonstrate exactly this: it swapped the task and the role of voice changed Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. THE PRIOR LITERATURE ALREADY DISAGREED WITH ITSELF, BY TASK, AND THIS PAPER NAMES IT: `a voice change between a spoken word and its repetition has been shown to have a detrimental effect on auditory priming in stem completion and word identification ... but not in lexical decision.` Three tasks, all called auditory priming, two showing an effect of voice and one not. That is the observation the whole study is built on - not a puzzle to be resolved but a clue about what the tasks measure Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. VOICE REPETITION TURNS OUT TO BE NECESSARY, NOT MERELY HELPFUL: `Quotation withheld.` Word repetition was intact in that condition - the same words came back - and priming did not. At the level this task works on, repeating the word is not enough; the voice has to repeat too, which is a much stronger claim than voice being one contributor among several Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. THE DOSE-RESPONSE HAS A CROSSING VARIABLE, WHICH IS WHY THE DESIGN NEEDED A SECOND ROUND. Priming appeared `only in the one- and two-speaker conditions` and vanished at three and four - but voice FAMILIARITY falls as the number of speakers rises, so the two are confounded by construction. When familiarity was equated by pre-training, priming came back at three voices. `Number of speakers` is therefore not the variable it appears to be, and the paper takes it apart rather than reporting the monotone result it could have Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. AND THE TASK WAS CHOSEN TO DEFEAT A RESPONSE BIAS, WHICH IS AN ARGUMENT ABOUT MEASUREMENT RATHER THAN ABOUT MEMORY. The introduction's charge against the standard tasks is that requiring participants to report whole words `renders priming dependent on the activation of whole words while focusing performance away from the acoustic component` - so the instrument was producing the word-level answer it kept finding. Phoneme monitoring forces attention below the word, and the result changes. A methodological objection of the same shape as Holcomb2005's against Kiefer, in a different literature Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. extends → Schacter & Church (1992) Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. builds-on → Mullenix & Pisoni (1990) Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. ANOVA ANOVA Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. one-way ANOVA one-way ANOVA Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. post hoc pairwise comparison (Fisher's LSD) post hoc pairwise comparison (Fisher's LSD) Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. standard deviation standard deviation Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. mean mean Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. Auditory priming was significant only in the one- and two-speaker conditions, not with three or four speakers. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. With voice familiarity equated to the one-speaker reference, the harmful effect of acoustic variability on priming was confined to the four-speaker condition. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. Changing the voice of a studied word at test abolished priming, showing voice information to be a critical component of auditory priming. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. Word frequency did not interact with priming, so the memory traces supporting auditory priming were independent of a word-level factor such as frequency. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. High-frequency words were responded to 25 msec faster on average than low-frequency words. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. Words beginning with the monitored phoneme b were responded to 55 msec faster than words beginning with another phoneme. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. At the surface level of processing this task demands, repeating the word only produces priming if the voice is repeated too. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. auditory priming auditory priming Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. priming priming Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. priming score priming score Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. number of speakers number of speakers Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. voice voice Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. word frequency word frequency Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. response latency response latency Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. length of the study and test lists length of the study and test lists Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. number of exposures number of exposures Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. 280 — number of college students who took part Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. 98.65% — overall mean accuracy of phoneme monitoring after preliminary training Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. 4.41% — proportion of trials discarded as latency outliers beyond 2 SD of each participant's mean Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. F(l,124) = 34.79, MSe = 720.09,p < .0001 — main effect of priming across the four same-speaker baseline conditions Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. F(l,62) = 1.72 — non-significant test of whether priming magnitude differed between the one- and two-speaker conditions Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. 55 msec — speed advantage for words beginning with the monitored phoneme b Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. 25 msec — speed advantage for high-frequency over low-frequency words Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. 48 — number of monosyllabic English word stimuli, split into two sets of 24 Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.

The full text of this article is not redistributable, so it is not included here. The evidence sentences are withheld with it; the tag layer and its grounding status remain. The article itself is at https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03214553.