ChenpersName, SpencepersName (2018date). “Dissociating the time courses of the cross-modal semantic priming effects elicited by naturalistic sounds and spoken words.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Reviewtitle·j.
Object of study —
Research question — Do naturalistic soundsterm and spoken wordsterm prime the detection of semantically congruent pictures over the same time course, and is that time course stable across prior testing context?
Contribution — Dissociates two cross-modal priming time courses: naturalistic soundsterm boost picture detection sensitivityterm early (350 ms) and only briefly, whereas spoken wordsterm prime later (1,000 ms) and their effect can be carried over or abolished by the SOAterm·var tested beforehand.
phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | cross-modal semantic priming — “The present study compared the time courses of the cross-modal semantic priming effects elicited by naturalistic sounds and spoken words on visual picture processing.” | |
| claim-type | existence — “Naturalistic sounds consistently elicited a cross-modal semantic priming effect on visual sensitivity ( d' ) for pictures (higher d' in the congruent than in the incongruent condition) at the 350-ms rather than at the 1,000-ms stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA).” | |
| method — evidence | — “Two within-participants factors, prime type (naturalistic sound or spoken word) and congruency (congruent or incongruent), and one between-participants factor, SOA (350 or 1,000 ms), were manipulated.” | |
| mechanism | Naturalistic sounds reach meaning by a direct route while spoken words must go through lexical representations, so the sound-driven cross-modal priming arrives sooner — “Together, the results of the two experiments reported here demonstrate that naturalistic sounds elicit more rapid cross-modal priming than do spoken words, which is likely determined by their speed of semantic access stemming from the different processing routes.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Meaning activated by a naturalistic sound decays quickly unless it is actively maintained, which explains why its priming effect vanishes at the longer interval — “Given that naturalistic sounds can access their meaning rapidly (within 350 ms in the current study), the short-lived priming effect suggests that the activated meaning would be forgotten rapidly as well, unless the information can be temporally maintained.” | mechanisms[1] |
| replicates | Chen and Spence (2011) — “We therefore replicated the results at the 350-ms SOA reported in Chen and Spence ( 2011 ).” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | Chen & Spence (2011); Edmiston & Lupyan (2015); Lupyan & Thompson-Schill (2012) — “Given the different SOAs and methods, and given the different mechanisms proposed by previous research (Chen & Spence, 2011 ; Edmiston & Lupyan, 2015 ; Lupyan & Thompson-Schill, 2012 ), we wanted to carefully examine the time courses of cross-modal semantic priming effects elicited by naturalistic sounds and spoken words.” | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | priming measured as SENSITIVITY (d'), not as speed - and the alternative explicitly refused. The claim is that the auditory cue helps the picture BREAK THROUGH INTO AWARENESS `rather than simply giving rise to some sort of criterion change`: the participant sees more, rather than becoming readier to say yes. A signal-detection design used for exactly what it is for, which is rare in this corpus — “the presentation of either a naturalistic sound or spoken word enhances the sensitivity ( d' ) of visual object detection (Chen & Spence, 2011 ; Lupyan & Ward, 2013 ). Such results suggest that the meaning of the auditory cue facilitates visual processing and boosts the breakthrough of the visual stimulus into awareness cross-modally rather than simply giving rise to some sort of criterion change” | senses[0] |
| sense | TIME COURSE AS THE INDIVIDUATING PROPERTY - two primes carrying the same meaning, producing the same effect on the same measure, told apart only by WHEN. Naturalistic sounds prime at 350 ms and not at 1,000; spoken words at 1,000 and not at 350. If the effect were named by what it does, these would be one thing; the paper's title insists they are two, and the difference is a latency — “The cross-modal semantic priming effects elicited by the presentation of naturalistic sounds versus spoken words can therefore be dissociated in terms of their differing time courses. Furthermore, naturalistic sounds consistently primed the visual pictures at the short SOA; in contrast, the priming effect elicited by spoken words was significantly modulated by the SOA tested beforehand” | senses[1] |
| sense | the word effect is CONDITIONED BY THE ORDER OF TESTING, and the paper reports both halves: meet the 1,000-ms SOA first and priming carries over to 350 ms; meet the 350-ms SOA first - where nothing happens - and the 1,000-ms effect is eliminated too. A priming effect that depends on what the participant was tested on beforehand is partly a fact about the paradigm rather than about the mind, and a corpus of priming records should be able to find the papers that said so — “when the 350-ms SOA (where no priming effect was observed) was tested first, the priming effect at the 1,000-ms SOA was eliminated as well. Finally, higher sensitivity in the 350-ms than in the 1,000-ms SOA was observed in both experiments” | senses[2] |
| sense | `via cross-modal associations` and `short lived` - the abstract's own characterisation of the sound effect, and both halves matter. The route is associative rather than lexical, and the duration is explicitly limited, which is what distinguishes this from the long-lasting perceptual priming other records in this corpus describe — “It would therefore appear that visual picture processing can be rapidly primed by naturalistic sounds via cross-modal associations, and this effect is short lived. In contrast, spoken words prime visual picture processing over a wider range of prime-target intervals, though this effect was conditioned by the prior context” | senses[3] |
| control | the order of the naturalistic-sound and spoken-word blocks was counterbalanced across participants — held — rules out that a difference between the two stimulus types is an order or fatigue effect — “There were two blocks for both naturalistic sounds and spoken words, and the order of these two types of auditory stimuli was counterbalanced across participants.” | controls[0] |
| differs in | naturalistic sounds —distinct-from→ spoken words — THE ROUTE TO MEANING, AND THEREFORE THE LATENCY - naturalistic sounds access semantic information directly, spoken words must go via lexical representations first. One hop against two, which is the paper's whole explanation of the dissociated time courses — “The different processing times plausibly stem from the differing routes of semantic access for each type of auditory stimulus: Naturalistic sounds access semantic information directly, whereas spoken words have to access their meanings via lexical representations” — “access semantic information directly” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | naturalistic sounds —distinct-from→ spoken words — The strongest row on this record: the distinction, its mechanism and its consequence are all in one sentence, and the sentence is the paper's own explanation rather than my reconstruction. 'plausibly' is the authors' hedge and it is inside the quote. — “The different processing times plausibly stem from the differing routes of semantic access for each type of auditory stimulus: Naturalistic sounds access semantic information directly, whereas spoken words have to access their meanings via lexical representations” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | naturalistic sounds —distinct-from→ spoken words — 0.95 — “The different processing times plausibly stem from the differing routes of semantic access for each type of auditory stimulus: Naturalistic sounds access semantic information directly, whereas spoken words have to access their meanings via lexical representations” | concept_edges[0] |
| effect direction | naturalistic sounds —causes→ cross-modal semantic priming — increases — “Naturalistic sounds consistently elicited a cross-modal semantic priming effect on visual sensitivity ( d' ) for pictures (higher d' in the congruent than in the incongruent condition) at the 350-ms rather than at the 1,000-ms stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA)” — “higher d' in the congruent than in the incongruent condition” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | naturalistic sounds —causes→ cross-modal semantic priming — 'consistently' is the paper's word and is why this one is weighted above the word effect: the sound result held across both experiments, while the spoken-word result was modulated by testing order. — “Naturalistic sounds consistently elicited a cross-modal semantic priming effect on visual sensitivity ( d' ) for pictures (higher d' in the congruent than in the incongruent condition) at the 350-ms rather than at the 1,000-ms stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA)” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | naturalistic sounds —causes→ cross-modal semantic priming — 0.9 — “Naturalistic sounds consistently elicited a cross-modal semantic priming effect on visual sensitivity ( d' ) for pictures (higher d' in the congruent than in the incongruent condition) at the 350-ms rather than at the 1,000-ms stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA)” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | cross-modal semantic priming —operationalised-as→ sensitivity — THE MEASUREMENT DECISION: the effect is defined as a change in d' - higher in the congruent than the incongruent condition - rather than as a change in speed. The paper argues for it rather than assuming it, and refuses the response-criterion reading explicitly; that refusal is the sense row, because the sentence carrying it does not name the effect. — “Naturalistic sounds consistently elicited a cross-modal semantic priming effect on visual sensitivity ( d' ) for pictures (higher d' in the congruent than in the incongruent condition) at the 350-ms rather than at the 1,000-ms stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA)” | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | cross-modal semantic priming —operationalised-as→ sensitivity — 0.9 — “Naturalistic sounds consistently elicited a cross-modal semantic priming effect on visual sensitivity ( d' ) for pictures (higher d' in the congruent than in the incongruent condition) at the 350-ms rather than at the 1,000-ms stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA)” | concept_edges[2] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| replication | replicated | |
| no type for this | spoken words → their meanings — THE MEDIATION RELATION, AND NO TYPE IN THE VOCABULARY CAN EXPRESS IT. The paper's whole explanation of its dissociated time courses is a ROUTE: naturalistic sounds access semantic information DIRECTLY, whereas spoken words have to access their meanings VIA LEXICAL REPRESENTATIONS - one hop against two, which is why the sound primes at 350 ms and the word at 1,000. 'causes' asserts production and would lose the intermediate stage entirely; 'operationalised-as' says the authors CHOSE a measure, which is not what is claimed; 'part-of' says lexical representations are a component of the meaning rather than a stage on the way to it. Splitting it into two 'causes' edges (spoken words -> lexical representations, lexical representations -> meaning) would assert two direct productions where the paper asserts one indirect one, and would silently license the inference that the first can occur without the second. A is reached from B THROUGH C is one of the commonest claims in the psychology half of this corpus and there is nowhere to put it. Filed as; the same gap is why the Chen2018 record carries five concepts and only three edges. — “The different processing times plausibly stem from the differing routes of semantic access for each type of auditory stimulus: Naturalistic sounds access semantic information directly, whereas spoken words have to access their meanings via lexical representations” | unhoused_relations[0] |
| limitation | In the within-participants design of Experiment 2 the priming effect carried over between sessions, which can mask the effect of SOA. — “Such a carryover effect of the SOA from one session to the next may mask the modulation of SOA on the congruency effect from auditory cues.” | limitations[0] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Naturalistic sounds boosted detection sensitivity for semantically congruent pictures at the short (350 ms) prime-target interval, whereas spoken words only did so at the long (1,000 ms) interval, when each participant saw only one interval. — “The results of the present study demonstrate that the presentation of naturalistic sounds enhanced the visual sensitivity of semantically congruent pictures at the shorter SOA (350 ms) than spoken words did (1,000 ms) when each participant just encountered either one of the SOAs.” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | The priming effect of naturalistic sounds is fast but does not persist to the longer interval. — “It would therefore appear that visual picture processing can be rapidly primed by naturalistic sounds via cross-modal associations, and this effect is short lived.” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | In Experiment 2, testing order changed the spoken-word effect but left the naturalistic-sound effect intact. — “These results therefore suggest that the SOA order influenced the cross-modal semantic congruency effect elicited by spoken words but not by naturalistic sounds.” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | When the effective 1,000-ms interval was tested first, the spoken-word priming effect carried over to the 350-ms interval. — “Specifically, when the 1,000-ms SOA (demonstrating a significant priming effect) was tested first, the priming effect carried over to the 350-ms SOA” | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Detection sensitivity was higher at the 350-ms than at the 1,000-ms interval in both experiments. — “Finally, higher sensitivity in the 350-ms than in the 1,000-ms SOA was observed in both experiments.” | content_tags.findings[4] |
| quantity | Forty volunteers (10 males, mean age 22.2 years) — sample size and composition of Experiment 1 — “Forty volunteers (10 males, mean age 22.2 years) took part in this experiment in exchange for course credit or five pounds (UK sterling).” | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | Thirty-six volunteers (seven males, mean age 19.7 years) — sample size and composition of Experiment 2 — “Thirty-six volunteers (seven males, mean age 19.7 years) took part in this experiment.” | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | t (19) = 2.81, p < .05 — the congruency effect for naturalistic sounds at the 350-ms SOA in Experiment 1, contrasted with a null effect at 1,000 ms — “Paired t tests (Holm-Bonferroni correction, one-tailed were used because higher d' in the congruent than the incongruent condition was expected) demonstrated the congruency effect by naturalistic sounds at the 350-ms SOA, t (19) = 2.81, p < .05, but not at the 1,000-ms SOA, t (19) = -1.63, p = .12” | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | t (17) = 6.18, p < .001 — the spoken-word congruency effect in the group that met the 1,000-ms SOA first, versus t (17) = 0.65 in the reverse-order group — “Post hoc tests demonstrated that the congruency effect by spoken words was significant in Group 2 (1,000–350 ms), t (17) = 6.18, p < .001, but not in Group 1 (350–1,000 ms), t (17) = 0.65, p = .53.” | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | F (1, 34) = 7.50, p < .05, η p 2 = 0.18 — the naturalistic-sound congruency effect in Experiment 2, unaffected by testing order — “the congruency effect was significant for naturalistic sounds, F (1, 34) = 7.50, p < .05, η p 2 = 0.18, without being modulated by order (Congruency × Order: F < 1, p = .87, η p 2 = 0.001).” | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| variable | prime type (naturalistic sound or spoken word) (independent) — “Two within-participants factors, prime type (naturalistic sound or spoken word) and congruency (congruent or incongruent), and one between-participants factor, SOA (350 or 1,000 ms), were manipulated.” | content_tags.variables[0] |
| variable | semantic congruency (independent) — “Congruent and incongruent trials were mixed within blocks: The auditory cue matched the picture in the congruent trials, but they belonged to different categories based on the fundamental living thing versus nonliving thing separation in the incongruent trials.” | content_tags.variables[1] |
| variable | SOA (independent) — “Two within-participants factors, prime type (naturalistic sound or spoken word) and congruency (congruent or incongruent), and one between-participants factor, SOA (350 or 1,000 ms), were manipulated.” | content_tags.variables[2] |
| definition | sensitivity — “The sensitivity ( d' ) was calculated using the equations: d' = z (hit rate) – z (FA rate) in the congruent and incongruent conditions, separately (Green & Swets, 1966 ; Macmillan & Creelman, 2005 )” | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | congruent trials — “Congruent and incongruent trials were mixed within blocks: The auditory cue matched the picture in the congruent trials, but they belonged to different categories based on the fundamental living thing versus nonliving thing separation in the incongruent trials.” | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | incongruent trials — “Congruent and incongruent trials were mixed within blocks: The auditory cue matched the picture in the congruent trials, but they belonged to different categories based on the fundamental living thing versus nonliving thing separation in the incongruent trials.” | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| concept | cross-modal semantic priming — not defined in this paper's own words; the effect: a heard prime raises visual SENSITIVITY for a semantically congruent picture. Cross-modal because prime and target are in different senses, semantic because congruency of meaning is what does the work — “Naturalistic sounds consistently elicited a cross-modal semantic priming effect on visual sensitivity ( d' ) for pictures (higher d' in the congruent than in the incongruent condition) at the 350-ms rather than at the 1,000-ms stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA)” | concepts[0] |
| concept | naturalistic sounds — not defined in this paper's own words; one of the two prime types, and the fast one - a dog barking reaches meaning in one hop, so it primes early and briefly — “The different processing times plausibly stem from the differing routes of semantic access for each type of auditory stimulus: Naturalistic sounds access semantic information directly, whereas spoken words have to access their meanings via lexical representations” | concepts[1] |
| concept | spoken words — not defined in this paper's own words; the other, and the slow one: the same meaning arrives through a lexical representation first, which is the paper's explanation for why the effect appears later and lasts wider — “The different processing times plausibly stem from the differing routes of semantic access for each type of auditory stimulus: Naturalistic sounds access semantic information directly, whereas spoken words have to access their meanings via lexical representations” | concepts[2] |
| concept | lexical representations — not defined in this paper's own words; the extra hop that makes words slower than sounds here - the load-bearing term in the paper's whole account of the dissociation — “The different processing times plausibly stem from the differing routes of semantic access for each type of auditory stimulus: Naturalistic sounds access semantic information directly, whereas spoken words have to access their meanings via lexical representations” | concepts[3] |
| concept | stimulus onset asynchrony — not defined in this paper's own words; the independent variable that turns two similar effects into a dissociation: 350 ms against 1,000 ms between prime and target. The paper's title calls the result a difference in TIME COURSES, so this is the axis the finding lives on — “Naturalistic sounds consistently elicited a cross-modal semantic priming effect on visual sensitivity ( d' ) for pictures (higher d' in the congruent than in the incongruent condition) at the 350-ms rather than at the 1,000-ms stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA)” | concepts[4] |
| concept | sensitivity — not defined in this paper's own words; the dependent measure, and it is d' from signal detection theory rather than a reaction time - which lets the paper claim the prime changed what was SEEN and not merely what was reported — “the presentation of either a naturalistic sound or spoken word enhances the sensitivity ( d' ) of visual object detection (Chen & Spence, 2011 ; Lupyan & Ward, 2013 ). Such results suggest that the meaning of the auditory cue facilitates visual processing and boosts the breakthrough of the visual stimulus into awareness cross-modally rather than simply giving rise to some sort of criterion change” | concepts[5] |
| ANOVA F | as written: three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) — “and then submitted to a three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the factors of congruency, prime type, and SOA (see Table 2 for results). Critically, there was a significant three-way interaction.” | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| t-test t | as written: Paired t tests (Holm-Bonferroni correction, one-tailed — “Paired t tests (Holm-Bonferroni correction, one-tailed were used because higher d' in the congruent than the incongruent condition was expected) demonstrated the congruency effect by naturalistic sounds at the 350-ms SOA, t (19) = 2.81, p < .05, but not at the 1,000-ms SOA, t (19) = -1.63, p = .12” | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| effect size η p 2 | as written: η p 2 = 0.18 — “the congruency effect was significant for naturalistic sounds, F (1, 34) = 7.50, p < .05, η p 2 = 0.18, without being modulated by order (Congruency × Order: F < 1, p = .87, η p 2 = 0.001).” | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| p-value p | as written: p < .001 — “Post hoc tests demonstrated that the congruency effect by spoken words was significant in Group 2 (1,000–350 ms), t (17) = 6.18, p < .001, but not in Group 1 (350–1,000 ms), t (17) = 0.65, p = .53.” | content_tags.statistics[3] |
| signal detection sensitivity index d' | as written: d' = z (hit rate) – z (FA rate) — “The sensitivity ( d' ) was calculated using the equations: d' = z (hit rate) – z (FA rate) in the congruent and incongruent conditions, separately (Green & Swets, 1966 ; Macmillan & Creelman, 2005 )” | content_tags.statistics[4] |
Full text — tagged
The reference list is not part of the text we hold for this paper. Our copy was extracted from the publisher's page and the bibliography did not survive that extraction, so the article below ends before its references. Nothing has been removed by us.
Dissociating the time courses of the cross-modal semantic primingterm·prm effects elicited by naturalistic soundsterm and spoken wordsterm Yi-Chuan ChenpersName Yi-Chuan ChenpersName 1 Crossmodal Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, 9 South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3UD UK 1, ✉ , Charles SpencepersName Charles SpencepersName 1 Crossmodal Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, 9 South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3UD UK 1 Crossmodal Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, 9 South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3UD UK ✉ Corresponding author.
Issue date 2018.
© The Author(s) 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
PMCID: PMC5990551 PMID: 28600716 Abstract The present study compared the time courses of the cross-modal semantic primingterm·prm effects elicited by naturalistic soundsterm and spoken wordsterm on visual picture processing. Following an auditory prime, a picture (or blank frame) was briefly presented and then immediately masked. The participants had to judge whether or not a picture had been presented. Naturalistic soundsterm consistently elicited a cross-modal semantic primingterm·prm effect on visual sensitivityterm ( d' ) for pictures (higher d' in the congruent than in the incongruent condition) at the 350-ms rather than at the 1,000-ms stimulus onset asynchronyterm (SOAterm·var). Spoken wordsterm mainly elicited a cross-modal semantic primingterm·prm effect at the 1,000-ms rather than at the 350-ms SOAterm·var, but this effect was modulated by the order of testing these two SOAsterm·var. It would therefore appear that visual picture processing can be rapidly primed by naturalistic soundsterm via cross-modal associations, and this effect is short lived. In contrast, spoken wordsterm prime visual picture processing over a wider range of prime-target intervals, though this effect was conditioned by the prior context.
Keywords: Semantic, Multisensory, Audiovisual, Sensitivityterm, Priming In daily life, hearing the sound of a dog barking is likely informative with regard to the identity of a creature that is glimpsed, albeit briefly (ChenpersName & SpencepersName, 2010 ). Indeed, the presentation of either a naturalistic soundterm or spoken wordterm enhances the sensitivityterm ( d' ) of visual object detection (ChenpersName & SpencepersName, 2011 ; Lupyan & Ward, 2013 ). Such results suggest that the meaning of the auditory cue facilitates visual processing and boosts the breakthrough of the visual stimulus into awareness cross-modally rather than simply giving rise to some sort of criterion change (note that the dog barking certainly induces a likely guess that the creature might be a dog as well).
The time courses of cross-modal semantic primingterm·prm effects, however, appear to be different for naturalistic soundsterm and spoken wordsterm. ChenpersName and SpencepersName ( 2011 ) demonstrated that when leading the target picture by 346 ms, only naturalistic soundsterm (rather than spoken wordsterm) elicited a semantic priming effect on visual picture sensitivityterm in a simple detection task (when judging whether a picture was present or not). These results were explained based on evidence suggesting that naturalistic soundsterm access their associated meaning faster than spoken wordsterm do (ChenpersName & SpencepersName, 2013 ; Cummings et al., 2006 ; Saygin, Dick, & Bates, 2005 ). The different processing times plausibly stem from the differing routes of semantic access for each type of auditory stimulus: Naturalistic soundsterm access semantic information directly, whereas spoken wordsterm have to access their meanings via lexical representationsterm (Barsalou, Santos, Simmons, & Wilson, 2008 ; ChenpersName & SpencepersName, 2011 ; Glaser & Glaser, 1989 ).
Lupyan and colleagues, on the other hand, demonstrated an advantage for spoken wordsterm over naturalistic soundsterm at longer SOAsterm·var (around 1,000 ms or more; Edmiston & Lupyan, 2015 ; Lupyan & Thompson-Schill, 2012 1 ). The participants in their studies had to verify whether the auditory cue (either a naturalistic soundterm or a spoken wordterm) and the subsequently presented picture matched or not. The results demonstrate that the participants’ reaction times (RTs) were shorter for spoken wordsterm than for naturalistic soundsterm. Further evidence comes from an event-related potential (ERP) study: When a spoken wordterm led a target picture by around 1,670 ms, the P1 component associated with the picture (at 70–125 ms after onset) occurred earlier in the congruent than in the incongruent condition, but no such congruency effect was induced by naturalistic soundsterm (Boutonnet & Lupyan, 2015 ). These results were explained in terms of spoken wordsterm being associated with semantic representations that are more abstract and categorical, thus providing a conceptual cue regarding a given object that is general rather than specific to a particular exemplar, as compared to naturalistic soundsterm (Edmiston & Lupyan, 2015 ; Lupyan & Thompson-Schill, 2012 ).
Given the different SOAsterm·var and methods, and given the different mechanisms proposed by previous research (ChenpersName & SpencepersName, 2011 ; Edmiston & Lupyan, 2015 ; Lupyan & Thompson-Schill, 2012 ), we wanted to carefully examine the time courses of cross-modal semantic primingterm·prm effects elicited by naturalistic soundsterm and spoken wordsterm. Two critical SOAsterm·var were chosen: The 350- ms SOAterm·var is close to the interval at which ChenpersName and SpencepersName ( 2011 ) demonstrated cross-modal semantic primingterm·prm by naturalistic soundsterm (but not by spoken wordsterm) in a picture detection task. The 1,000-ms SOAterm·var (the interstimulus interval, ISI, was 500–650 ms) corresponds to the ISI somewhere between 400 and 1,000 ms used by Lupyan and Thompson-Schill ( 2012 ), the conditions demonstrated a cross-modal semantic advantage for spoken wordsterm over naturalistic soundsterm. In Experiment 1 , each participant was tested with only one of the SOAsterm·var, following the designs of ChenpersName and SpencepersName ( 2011 ) and Lupyan and Thompson-Schill ( 2012 ). In Experiment 2 , participants were tested with both SOAsterm·var in a counterbalanced order. In this case, we further examined whether the time courses of cross-modal semantic primingterm·prm effects are stable or modulated by prior context.
Experiment 1 Method Participants Forty volunteers (10 males, mean age 22.2 years) took part in this experiment in exchange for course credit or five pounds (UK sterling). The participants were native English speakers or bilinguals who had started to learn English by 5 years of age. All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and normal hearing by self-report, and all were naïve as to the purpose of the study. Written informed consent was obtained prior to the start of the study. The study was approved by the Medical Sciences Inter Divisional Research Ethics Committee, University of Oxford (MSD-IDREC-C1-2014-143).
Apparatus and stimuli The visual stimuli were presented on a 23-inch LED monitor controlled by a personal computer. The participants sat at a viewing distance of 58 cm from the monitor in a dimly lit chamber. Twenty-four outline-drawings (12 living and 12 nonliving things) taken from Snodgrass and Vanderwart ( 1980 ) and Bates et al. ( 2003 ), as well as their mirror images, were used as visual targets (see Appendix ). Five pattern masks were created by overlapping 20 nonobject figures randomly selected from Magnié, Besson, Poncet, and Dolisi ( 2003 ). Each pattern covered an area of 5.9° × 5.9°, sufficient to completely occlude all of the target pictures.
The auditory stimuli (8 bit mono; 22500 Hz digitization) were presented over closed-ear headphones and ranged in loudness from 31 to 51 dB sound pressure level (SPL). The naturalistic soundsterm were those produced by each of the objects. The spoken wordsterm consisted of the most commonly agreed-upon name used to refer each picture (Bates et al. 2003 ; Snodgrass & Vanderwart, 1980 ) and were produced by a female native English speaker. The naturalistic soundterm and the spoken wordterm associated with the same picture were edited to have the same duration. The root mean square values of all of the auditory stimuli were equalized.
Design Two within-participants factors, prime type (naturalistic sound or spoken word)term·var and congruency (congruent or incongruent), and one between-participants factor, SOAterm·var (350 or 1,000 ms), were manipulated. Naturalistic soundsterm and spoken wordsterm were presented in separate blocks of trials. Congruent and incongruent trialsterm·def were mixed within blocks: The auditory cue matched the picture in the congruent trialsterm·def, but they belonged to different categories based on the fundamental living thing versus nonliving thing separation in the incongruent trialsterm·def. Each SOAterm·var was tested with 20 participants.
All 24 pictures and their mirror images were presented once in each block—either one was presented in the congruent trialterm·def and the other in the incongruent trialterm·def (and they were swapped in another block). These trials were used to estimate the participant’s hit rate in the congruent and incongruent conditions, respectively. An additional 48 picture-absent trials, consisting of an auditory cue and a blank frame, were presented to estimate the participant’s false alarm (FA) rate. These 96 trials were presented in a completely randomized order. There were two blocks for both naturalistic soundsterm and spoken wordsterm, and the order of these two types of auditory stimuli was counterbalanced across participants. The participants were not given any information concerning the possible semantic congruencyterm·var between the auditory cue and picture prior to taking part in the study.
Procedure The participants initiated a block of trials by pressing the enter key on the keyboard in front of them. In each trial (see Fig. 1 a), a blank frame was followed by either a frame with a picture or another blank for 17 ms (one frame at the screen refresh rate of 60 Hz). The pattern mask was presented immediately thereafter; meanwhile, the participants had to decide whether they had seen a picture (irrespective of its identity) presented before the mask by pressing the space bar. The participants were informed that the task was not speeded, and they should only respond if they were sure that they had seen a picture (i.e., they should maintain a strict response criterion).
Fig. 1.
a Sequence of three frames presented in each trial: A blank, a target picture (e.g., a dog), and a pattern mask. The target picture and pattern mask were presented in black in the center of a white background. b Represents the current experimental design in terms of signal detection theory. The distributions of dashed , dotted , and solid lines represent target present/congruent, target present/incongruent, and target absent conditions, respectively. In this design, the congruent and incongruent conditions share the same FA rate. The sensitivityterm ( d' ) was calculated using the equations: d' = z (hit rate) – z (FA rate)term·stat in the congruent and incongruent conditions, separately (Green & Swets, 1966 ; Macmillan & Creelman, 2005 ) Prior to the start of the main experiment, all of the pictures and their matched names were presented on the monitor in a completely randomized order across participants. Each picture-name pair was presented for 1,500 ms and interleaved by a blank frame for 500 ms. An easy practice session (eight trials with a picture duration of 33 ms) and a harder practice session (16 trials with a picture duration of 17 ms) were conducted prior to the main experiment. In the easy practice session, the accuracy had to reach 85%, or it was repeated up to three times. The stimuli in the practice session were not used in the main experiment. The experiment lasted for approximately 30 minutes.
Results For both naturalistic soundsterm and spoken wordsterm, the hit rate in the congruent and incongruent conditions was estimated on the basis of 48 trials (24 pictures × 2 blocks), while the FA rate was estimated on the basis of 96 trials (48 picture-absent trials × 2 blocks; see Table 1 ); d' values were calculated based on the hit and FA rate (see Figs. 1 b– 2 ), and then submitted to a three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)term·stat with the factors of congruency, prime type, and SOAterm·var (see Table 2 for results). Critically, there was a significant three-way interaction. Paired t tests (Holm-Bonferroni correction, one-tailedterm·stat were used because higher d' in the congruent than the incongruent condition was expected) demonstrated the congruency effect by naturalistic soundsterm at the 350-ms SOAterm·var, t (19) = 2.81, p < .05, but not at the 1,000-ms SOAterm·var, t (19) = -1.63, p = .12; in contrast, the congruency effect by spoken wordsterm occurred at the 1,000-ms SOAterm·var, t (19) = 2.87, p < .05, but not at the 350-ms SOAterm·var, t (19) = 0.32, p = .75. We therefore replicated the results at the 350-ms SOAterm·var reported in ChenpersName and SpencepersName ( 2011 ).
Table 1.
Percentage of hit and false alarm (FA) rates ( SE in parentheses) in each of the conditions in Experiment 1 SOAterm·var (ms) Sound type Hit rate FA rate Congruent Incongruent 350 Naturalistic soundterm 83.4 (3.8) 79.1 (4.0) 7.1 (2.6) Spoken wordterm 84.0 (3.6) 81.9 (4.6) 6.7 (2.1) 1,000 Naturalistic soundterm 65.3 (3.7) 68.3 (4.2) 10.3 (4.0) Spoken wordterm 73.8 (3.5) 67.3 (3.9) 12.4 (3.6) Fig. 2.
Mean sensitivityterm ( d' ) at the 350- and 1,000-ms SOAsterm·var in Experiment 1 . Error bars indicate ±1 SEM . Sound = naturalistic soundsterm; Word = spoken wordsterm Table 2.
Results of analysis of sensitivityterm ( d' ) in Experiment 1 (three-way ANOVAterm·stat: Congruency × Prime Type × SOAterm·var) Effect F (1, 38) η p 2 Note Congruency 5.92 <.05 0.14 Congruent (2.58) > Incongruent (2.50) SOAterm·var 11.22 <.005 0.23 350 ms (2.99) > 1,000 ms (2.10) Congruency × Prime Type × SOAterm·var 9.99 <.005 0.21 Experiment 2 Method Thirty-six volunteers (seven males, mean age 19.7 years) took part in this experiment. Three factors were tested with all participants: prime type (naturalistic sound or spoken word)term·var, congruency (congruent or incongruent), and SOAterm·var (350 or 1,000 ms). The fourth factor, the order in which the SOAsterm·var were tested, was manipulated between participants: Half of the participants were tested with the 350-ms SOAterm·var in the first session and the 1,000-ms SOAterm·var in the second session (Group 1: 350–1,000 ms); the order was reversed for the remainder of the participants (Group 2: 1,000–350 ms). The stimuli and task were the same as in Experiment 1 . The experiment took an hour to complete.
Results The participant’s d' (see Fig. 3 ) was calculated based on the hit and FA rates in each condition (see Table 3 ), and then submitted to a four-way ANOVAterm·stat (see Table 4 a for the results). There was a significant three-way interaction between congruency, prime type, and order. Two separate two-way ANOVAsterm·stat for each prime type with the factors of congruency and order demonstrated that the congruency effect was significant for naturalistic soundsterm, F (1, 34) = 7.50, p < .05, η p 2 = 0.18, without being modulated by order (Congruency × Order: F < 1, p = .87, η p 2 = 0.001). However, for spoken wordsterm, the congruency effect was modulated by order (Congruency × Order): F (1, 34) = 12.41, p < .005, η p 2 = 0.27. Post hoc tests demonstrated that the congruency effect by spoken wordsterm was significant in Group 2 (1,000–350 ms), t (17) = 6.18, p < .001, but not in Group 1 (350–1,000 ms), t (17) = 0.65, p = .53. These results therefore suggest that the SOAterm·var order influenced the cross-modal semantic congruencyterm·var effect elicited by spoken wordsterm but not by naturalistic soundsterm. Such a carryover effect of the SOAterm·var from one session to the next may mask the modulation of SOAterm·var on the congruency effect from auditory cues. The data from the two sessions were therefore analyzed separately.
Fig. 3.
Mean sensitivityterm ( d' ) at the 350- and 1,000-ms SOAsterm·var for Group 1 (tested in the order 350- and then 1,000-ms SOAterm·var) and Group 2 (with the order reversed) in Experiment 2 . Error bars indicate ±1 SEM . Sound = naturalistic soundsterm; Word = spoken wordsterm Table 3.
Percentage of hit and false alarm (FA) rates ( SE in parentheses) in each of the conditions in Experiment 2 SOAterm·var (ms) Sound type Hit rate FA rate Congruent Incongruent Group 1 350 (first session) Naturalistic soundterm 88.0 (2.3) 81.0 (4.3) 3.2 (1.4) Spoken wordterm 82.6 (3.8) 81.4 (4.0) 2.2 (0.6) 1,000 (second session) Naturalistic soundterm 71.9 (3.7) 72.3 (4.1) 2.5 (0.9) Spoken wordterm 71.4 (4.4) 69.0 (5.2) 1.4 (0.4) Group 2 350 (second session) Naturalistic soundterm 80.7 (4.0) 75.8 (5.1) 5.6 (3.3) Spoken wordterm 79.2 (3.8) 67.4 (5.4) 3.5 (2.2) 1,000 (first session) Naturalistic soundterm 69.4 (4.0) 69.7 (4.5) 4.7 (2.2) Spoken wordterm 71.1 (4.9) 64.0 (5.9) 5.5 (2.3) Table 4.
Results of analysis of sensitivityterm ( d' ) in Experiment 2 Effect F (1, 34) η p 2 Note (A) Four-way ANOVAterm·stat (Congruency × Prime Type × SOAterm·var × Order) Congruency 17.85 <.001 0.34 Congruent (2.99) > Incongruent (2.85) SOAterm·var 45.32 <.001 0.57 350 ms (3.13) > 1,000 ms (2.70) Congruency × SOAterm·var 10.15 <.005 0.23 Congruency × Prime Type 6.46 <.05 0.16 Congruency × Order 4.49 <.05 0.12 Congruency × Prime Type × Order 16.95 <.001 0.33 (B) First session: three-way ANOVAterm·stat (Congruency × Prime Type × SOAterm·var) Congruency 8.85 <.01 0.21 Congruent (2.98) > Incongruent (2.85) SOAterm·var 6.65 <.05 0.16 350 ms (3.26) > 1,000 ms (2.58) Congruency × Prime Type × SOAterm·var 12.24 <.005 0.27 (C) Second session: three-way ANOVAterm·stat (Congruency × Prime Type × SOAterm·var) Congruency 15.83 <.001 0.32 Congruent (2.99) > Incongruent (2.84) Congruency × SOAterm·var 14.41 <.005 0.30 Congruency × Prime Type 4.96 <.05 0.13 When only including the data from the first session (top row in Fig. 3 ), a three-way ANOVAterm·stat with the factors of congruency, prime type, and SOAterm·var (with SOAterm·var as a between-participant factor) was conducted (see Table 4 b). This is the same design as in Experiment 1 , and the results were replicated: The three-way interaction was significant. Paired t tests demonstrated that the congruency effect by naturalistic soundsterm was only observed at the 350-ms SOAterm·var, t (17) = 2.50, p < .05, but not at the 1,000-ms SOAterm·var, t (17) = -0.27, p = .79. In contrast, the congruency effect by spoken wordsterm was only statistically significant at the 1,000-ms SOAterm·var, t (17) = 3.94, p < .005, but not at the 350-ms SOAterm·var, t (17) = 0.50, p = .62.
The results of the second session (bottom row in Fig. 3 ) were different from the first session (see Table 4 c). The significant interaction between congruency and SOAterm·var was attributed to the fact that the congruency effect was only significant at the 350-ms SOAterm·var, t (17) = 4.69, p < .001, but not at the 1,000-ms SOAterm·var, t (17) = 0.16, p = .87. Planned comparisons demonstrated that the congruency effect was significant at the 350-ms SOAterm·var for both naturalistic soundsterm, t (17) = 2.98, p < .05, and spoken wordsterm, t (17) = 4.30, p < .001, but for neither at the 1,000-ms SOAterm·var, t (17) = -0.57, p = .58, and t (17) = 0.65, p = .53, respectively. The significant interaction between congruency and prime type reflected the congruency effect being significant for spoken wordsterm, t (35) = 3.48, p < .005, but only marginally significant for naturalistic soundsterm, t (35) = 1.88, p = .07. The latter perhaps results from the slightly higher d' in the incongruent than in the congruent condition at the 1,000-ms SOAterm·var.
General discussion The results of the present study demonstrate that the presentation of naturalistic soundsterm enhanced the visual sensitivityterm of semantically congruent pictures at the shorter SOAterm·var (350 ms) than spoken wordsterm did (1,000 ms) when each participant just encountered either one of the SOAsterm·var. The cross-modal semantic primingterm·prm effects elicited by the presentation of naturalistic soundsterm versus spoken wordsterm can therefore be dissociated in terms of their differing time courses. Furthermore, naturalistic soundsterm consistently primed the visual pictures at the short SOAterm·var; in contrast, the priming effect elicited by spoken wordsterm was significantly modulated by the SOAterm·var tested beforehand. Specifically, when the 1,000-ms SOAterm·var (demonstrating a significant priming effect) was tested first, the priming effect carried over to the 350-ms SOAterm·var (this was not observed in Experiment 1 ). However, when the 350-ms SOAterm·var (where no priming effect was observed) was tested first, the priming effect at the 1,000-ms SOAterm·var was eliminated as well. Finally, higher sensitivityterm in the 350-ms than in the 1,000-ms SOAterm·var was observed in both experiments. This can be explained by an attentional cuing effect elicited by the presentation of a temporally close auditory cue (McDonald, Teder-Sälejärvi, & Hillyard, 2000 ).
That naturalistic soundsterm elicited the cross-modal semantic primingterm·prm effect faster (i.e., at the shorter SOAterm·var) than spoken wordsterm did suggests that the time required to access meaning for the former is shorter (ChenpersName & SpencepersName, 2013 ; Cummings et al., 2006 ; Saygin et al., 2005 ). Consistent evidence comes from the results of ERPs studies: For instance, Murray, Camen, Andino, Bovet, and Clarke ( 2006 ) have demonstrated that the brain activities associated with naturalistic soundsterm produced by living versus nonliving things can be discriminated around 70 ms to 119 ms after sound onset. The component associated with the meaning of spoken wordsterm (the N400; Kutas & Hillyard, 1980 ), on the other hand, typically starts 200 ms after word onset, and it could be delayed if the word is longer or else shares initial syllables with other words (van Petten, Coulson, Rubin, Plante, & Parks, 1999 ).
These results may partly be attributed to the nature of the acoustic signals that are associated with each type of stimulus: Naturalistic soundsterm associated with different object categories have distinct time-frequency spectrums from each other (e.g., Murray et al., 2006 ). By contrast, spoken wordsterm become comprehensible when the acoustic signals are abstracted into various phonetic representations, and the latter are then used to access their associated lexical representationsterm (Obleser & Eisner, 2009 ). Consequently, a semantic network suggests that naturalistic soundsterm and visual pictures access semantics directly, whereas spoken wordsterm access their meanings via lexical representationsterm (ChenpersName & SpencepersName, 2011 , 2017 ; Glaser & Glaser, 1989 ). Hence, the cross-modal semantic interactions between naturalistic soundsterm and pictures would be expected to occur more rapidly than between spoken wordsterm and pictures, as demonstrated in the present study.
At the 1,000-ms SOAterm·var, only spoken wordsterm but not naturalistic soundsterm gave rise to cross-modal semantic primingterm·prm effects, thus suggesting that the effect induced by naturalistic soundsterm is short-lived (see also ChenpersName & SpencepersName, 2017 ; Kim, Porter, & Goolkasian, 2014 , when using the picture categorization task). Given that naturalistic soundsterm can access their meaning rapidly (within 350 ms in the current study), the short-lived priming effect suggests that the activated meaning would be forgotten rapidly as well, unless the information can be temporally maintained. The maintenance of representations of naturalistic soundsterm, nevertheless, is underpinned by the auditory imagery capability, or else by being transferred into lexical codes and stored in the phonological loop (Snyder & Gregg, 2011 ; Soemer & Saito, 2015 ), and both processes take extra time or cognitive resources. In contrast, spoken wordsterm essentially have the benefit of being maintained in the phonological loop in the working memory system (Baddeley, 2012 ), thus leading to the significant priming effect over a greater range of SOAsterm·var than naturalistic soundsterm (current study; ChenpersName & SpencepersName, 2017 ).
The final contrast lies in the fact that the time course of the cross-modal semantic primingterm·prm effect by naturalistic soundsterm was stable, whereas that elicited by spoken wordsterm was modulated by the prior context (i.e., the order in which the SOAsterm·var were tested). Audiovisual integration/interactions involving speech sounds have been demonstrated to be flexible. For example, the cross-modal semantic primingterm·prm effect by spoken wordsterm can be speeded up so as to be observed at around 350-ms SOAterm·var if the participants have been exposed to the longer SOAterm·var condition (the current study) or if the participants have to identify the target picture by reporting its name (ChenpersName & SpencepersName, 2011 ). In addition, the integration of verbal cues and visual lip movements occurs more often (indexed by a larger McGurk effect; McGurk & McDonald, 1976 ) if a series of congruent (compared to incongruent) audiovisual speech stimuli were presented beforehand (Nahorna, Berthommier, & Schwartz, 2012 ). Finally, the digits and letters that are presented subliminally to both vision and audition would be integrated only if the participants had consciously experienced these pairings prior to the test (Faivre, Mudrik, Schwartz, & Koch, 2014 ). The higher flexibility of audiovisual interactions involving spoken wordsterm than naturalistic soundsterm at the semantic level perhaps stems from the former accessing the semantic representations at an abstract, categorical, and modality-insensitive level, whereas the latter served as modality-specific and context-dependent attributes associated with the object cross-modally (Edmiston & Lupyan, 2015 ; Waxman & Gelman, 2009 ).
Together, the results of the two experiments reported here demonstrate that naturalistic soundsterm elicit more rapid cross-modal priming than do spoken wordsterm, which is likely determined by their speed of semantic access stemming from the different processing routes. On the other hand, the advantage of spoken wordsterm over naturalistic soundsterm to prime visual pictures across a more prolonged prime-target interval should result from the former being better maintained in working memory. Finally, consistent with previous studies, interactions between spoken wordsterm and visual signals are flexible—that is, they can be enhanced or inhibited by prior context or by task demands.
Acknowledgements The authors are supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), Rethinking the Senses grant (AH/L007053/1).
Appendix The auditory stimuli used in the present study. Note that the lengths of the naturalistic soundterm and spoken wordterm referring to the same picture were matched at 350 ms for the 14 one-syllable words, 450 ms for the seven two-syllable words, and 500 ms for the three- (or more) syllable words (three words). The identification accuracy, confidence, and familiarity ratings (maximum score = 7) for the sounds reflect the mean performance of 18 participants (four males, mean age 28 years, reported in ChenpersName & SpencepersName, 2011 ). The ratings of imagery concordance (maximum score = 5) were acquired via an online study (30 participants for naturalistic soundsterm, 18 males, mean age 31 years; 30 participants for spoken wordsterm, 19 males, mean age 33 years). All scores were lower for naturalistic soundsterm than for spoken wordsterm. Identification accuracy: t (23) = 5.42, p < .001; confidence rating: t (25) = 8.33, p < .001; familiarity rating: t (26) = 8.38, p < .001; imagery concordance: t (24) = 4.24, p < .001; two-tailed, unequal variance assumed Naturalistic soundsterm Spoken wordsterm Picture(Spoken wordterm) Naturalistic soundterm Duration (ms) Identification accuracy (%) Mean confidence rating Mean familiarity rating Mean imagery concordance Identification accuracy (%) Mean confidence rating Mean familiarity rating Mean imagery concordance Bird Bird chirping 350 77.8 4.7 4.8 4.4 100 6.9 6.9 4.7 Cat “Meow” 350 100 6.2 6.3 4.4 100 7.0 7.0 4.8 Cow “Moo” 350 88.9 6.4 6.3 4.8 100 6.9 7.0 4.8 Dog “Woof” 350 94.4 6.4 6.4 4.3 100 6.9 6.9 4.8 Duck “Quack” 350 100 6.8 6.3 4.5 100 6.9 6.9 4.8 Eagle Eagle call 450 55.6 4.9 4.6 4.5 100 6.8 6.9 4.8 Elephant Roar 500 61.1 4.8 4.6 4.7 100 6.9 6.9 4.9 Frog “Ribbit” 350 83.3 5.1 5.1 4.2 100 7.0 7.0 4.9 Goat “Baa-baa” 350 72.2 5.6 5.4 4.4 100 6.9 6.7 4.9 Horse Horse neighing 350 61.1 5.2 4.9 4.0 94 6.2 6.7 4.9 Pig “Oink” 350 50.0 5.2 5.4 4.2 100 6.9 7.0 4.9 Rooster Crowing sound 450 88.9 5.8 5.6 4.7 100 6.9 6.2 4.8 Car Car starting 350 77.8 5.4 5.8 4.0 100 7.0 7.0 4.6 Door Creak 350 88.9 4.8 5.2 4.3 100 6.9 6.8 4.7 Drum Banging of a drum 350 94.4 5.8 5.8 4.3 100 7.0 6.8 4.8 Guitar Guitar sound 450 88.9 6.0 6.4 4.8 100 7.0 6.9 4.9 Gun Gunshot 350 61.1 4.3 4.1 3.6 100 6.9 6.9 4.8 Motorcycle “Vroom-vroom” 500 33.3 4.8 5.1 3.4 100 6.9 6.7 4.7 Piano Piano sound 450 94.4 6.1 6.2 4.8 100 7.0 6.9 4.7 Scissors Clipping scissors 450 22.2 3.2 3.8 3.7 100 6.9 6.9 4.9 Switch Click 350 27.8 3.8 4.2 2.0 100 6.6 6.5 4.6 Telephone Telephone ringing 500 100 6.6 6.7 4.7 100 7.0 7.0 4.6 Trumpet Trumpet sound 450 83.3 5.3 5.3 4.6 100 7.0 6.7 4.9 Whistle Whistling 450 66.7 5.4 5.5 4.8 94.4 6.8 6.6 4.9 Mean ( SEM ) 60.9 (7.9) 5.2 (0.2) 5.2 (0.2) 4.3 (0.1) 98.7 (0.9) 6.9 (0.1) 6.8 (0.1) 4.8 (0.02) The stimuli used in the practice sessions were fly (humming fly), tiger (tiger roaring), bell (bell ringing), and cannon (cannon fire) Footnotes 1 The interstimulus interval was 400, 1000, or 1500 ms in Lupyan and Thompson-Schill ( 2012 ). However, since they did not report the duration of the auditory cue, it is not possible to determine the corresponding SOAsterm·var. Nevertheless, the SOAsterm·var were certainly longer than the 346 ms in ChenpersName and SpencepersName ( 2011 ).