Cited by 10Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy DevelopmentMemory Processes and Influences

Using the speeded word fragment completion task to examine semantic priming

Open access
Heyman, Tom, De Deyne, Simon, Hutchison, Keith A., Storms, Gert·2015·Behavior Research Methods

Abstract

The present research investigates semantic priming with an adapted version of the word fragment completion task. In this task, which we refer to as the speeded word fragment completion task, participants need to complete words such as lett_ce (lettuce), from which one letter was omitted, as quickly as possible. This paradigm has some interesting qualities in comparison with the traditionally used lexical decision task. That is, it requires no pseudowords, it is more engaging for participants, and most importantly, it allows for a more fine-grained investigation of semantic activation. In two studies, we found that words were completed faster when the preceding trial comprised a semantically related fragment such as tom_to (tomato) than when it comprised an unrelated fragment such as guit_r (guitar). A third experiment involved a lexical decision task, to compare both paradigms. The results showed that the magnitude of the priming effect was similar, but item-level priming effects were inconsistent over tasks. Crucially, the speeded word fragment completion task obtained strong priming effects for highly frequent, central words, such as work, money, and warm, whereas the lexical decision task did not. In a final experiment featuring only short, highly frequent words, the lexical decision task failed to find a priming effect, whereas the fragment completion task did obtain a robust effect. Taken together, these results suggest that the speeded word fragment completion task may…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/s13428-014-0496-5

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heyman, T., De Deyne, S., Hutchison, K. A., & Storms, G.
Affiliations
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • Montana State University (US)
Corresponding author
Heyman, Tom
Venue
Behavior Research Methods
Published
2014-06-19
Volume
47
Issue
2
Pages
580-606
ISSN
  • 1554-351X (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-3528
OpenAlex
W1974852267
Cited by
10
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 2
FWCI
0.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavior Research Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
semantic priming, lexical decision, semantic activation, word frequency, word fragment completion
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Male, Semantics, Task Performance and Analysis, Time and Motion Studies, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review