{"id":{"repo_id":"ku","oai_identifier":"oai:kuscholarworks.ku.edu:1808/4561"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/ku/oai:kuscholarworks.ku.edu:1808/4561","repository":{"repo_id":"ku","name":"University of Kansas","base_url":"https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"DO STRATEGIC PRIMING PROCESSES DIFFER FOR CATEGORY VS. ASSOCIATIVE PRIMING? AN EVENT-RELATED POTENTIALS STUDY OF PROACTIVE EXPECTANCY STRATEGIES.","abstract":"An extension of Becker's 1980 semantic priming study challenges the Verification Model by proposing that there are two different priming processes, one at a perceptual level and one at a semantic level. Participants performed a lexical decision task with a category-dominant or associative-dominant list while ERPs were recorded. We predicted that the associative effects would be mediated by facilitation and would influence the N170 and that the categorical effects would be indexed by the N300 for inhibitory effects and the N400 for facilitatory effects. Inhibition was not seen for unrelated targets in the categorical condition. The fillers in the categorical condition produced an inhibition effect but not a N300 effect. The N170 effect was not significant. An N400 effect was observed only for the associative list. It is suggested that this finding is consistent with a previously proposed (Franklin, et al., 2007) post-lexical semantic expectancy updating account for the N400.","abstract_html":"An extension of Becker's 1980 semantic priming study challenges the Verification Model by proposing that there are two different priming processes, one at a perceptual level and one at a semantic level. Participants performed a lexical decision task with a category-dominant or associative-dominant list while ERPs were recorded. We predicted that the associative effects would be mediated by facilitation and would influence the N170 and that the categorical effects would be indexed by the N300 for inhibitory effects and the N400 for facilitatory effects. Inhibition was not seen for unrelated targets in the categorical condition. The fillers in the categorical condition produced an inhibition effect but not a N300 effect. The N170 effect was not significant. An N400 effect was observed only for the associative list. It is suggested that this finding is consistent with a previously proposed (Franklin, et al., 2007) post-lexical semantic expectancy updating account for the N400.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Gibson, Linzi Marie"],"institution":"University of Kansas","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Atchley, Ruth Ann"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2008,"date_issued":"2008-01-01","date_published":"2008-01-01","updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:46:17Z","subjects":["Cognitive psychology","Erp","Expectancy","Priming"],"languages":["EN"],"rights":["This item is protected by copyright and unless otherwise specified the copyright of this thesis/dissertation is held by the author."],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["http://dissertations.umi.com/ku:10084"],"render_values":[{"text":"http://dissertations.umi.com/ku:10084","href":"http://dissertations.umi.com/ku:10084","code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/1808/4561","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Atchley, Ruth Ann"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Gibson, Linzi Marie"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2009-05-08T23:15:20Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2009-05-08T23:15:20Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2008-01-01"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["University of Kansas"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Cognitive psychology","Erp","Expectancy","Priming"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["EN"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["This item is protected by copyright and unless otherwise specified the copyright of this thesis/dissertation is held by the author."]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["http://dissertations.umi.com/ku:10084"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/1808/4561"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["An extension of Becker's 1980 semantic priming study challenges the Verification Model by proposing that there are two different priming processes, one at a perceptual level and one at a semantic level. Participants performed a lexical decision task with a category-dominant or associative-dominant list while ERPs were recorded. We predicted that the associative effects would be mediated by facilitation and would influence the N170 and that the categorical effects would be indexed by the N300 for inhibitory effects and the N400 for facilitatory effects. Inhibition was not seen for unrelated targets in the categorical condition. The fillers in the categorical condition produced an inhibition effect but not a N300 effect. The N170 effect was not significant. An N400 effect was observed only for the associative list. It is suggested that this finding is consistent with a previously proposed (Franklin, et al., 2007) post-lexical semantic expectancy updating account for the N400."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["DO STRATEGIC PRIMING PROCESSES DIFFER FOR CATEGORY VS. ASSOCIATIVE PRIMING? AN EVENT-RELATED POTENTIALS STUDY OF PROACTIVE EXPECTANCY STRATEGIES."]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Atchley, Ruth Ann"],"dc:creator":["Gibson, Linzi Marie"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2009-05-08T23:15:20Z"],"dc:date.available":["2009-05-08T23:15:20Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2008-01-01"],"dc:description.abstract":["An extension of Becker's 1980 semantic priming study challenges the Verification Model by proposing that there are two different priming processes, one at a perceptual level and one at a semantic level. Participants performed a lexical decision task with a category-dominant or associative-dominant list while ERPs were recorded. We predicted that the associative effects would be mediated by facilitation and would influence the N170 and that the categorical effects would be indexed by the N300 for inhibitory effects and the N400 for facilitatory effects. Inhibition was not seen for unrelated targets in the categorical condition. The fillers in the categorical condition produced an inhibition effect but not a N300 effect. The N170 effect was not significant. An N400 effect was observed only for the associative list. It is suggested that this finding is consistent with a previously proposed (Franklin, et al., 2007) post-lexical semantic expectancy updating account for the N400."],"dc:identifier.other":["http://dissertations.umi.com/ku:10084"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/1808/4561"],"dc:language.iso":["EN"],"dc:publisher":["University of Kansas"],"dc:rights":["This item is protected by copyright and unless otherwise specified the copyright of this thesis/dissertation is held by the author."],"dc:subject":["Cognitive psychology","Erp","Expectancy","Priming"],"dc:title":["DO STRATEGIC PRIMING PROCESSES DIFFER FOR CATEGORY VS. ASSOCIATIVE PRIMING? AN EVENT-RELATED POTENTIALS STUDY OF PROACTIVE EXPECTANCY STRATEGIES."],"dc:type":["Thesis"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:46:17Z"}