ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology2019
Validity of an eyetracking method for capturing auditory-visual cross-format semantic priming.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSemantic priming paradigms are important for understanding lexical-semantic processing and the nature of linguistic deficits accompanying language performance in neurologically impaired individuals such as people with aphasia. Reaction-time-(RT)-based traditional semantic priming tasks entail potential confounds, especially problematic when applied to people with aphasia, who may have concomitant neurocognitive challenges that limit task performance. Some of these confounds include requirements of following complex instructions, making metalinguistic judgments, and using speech or limb-based motor actions to indicate overt responses. Eyetracking methods have great potential for avoiding some of these confounds. We tested the validity of an eyetracking method in capturing semantic priming in an auditory-visual cross-format priming paradigm (auditory word prime-visual image target).
methodA total of 72 neurologically unimpaired adults participated in two phases: a stimulus development phase using traditional priming (n = 32) and an experimental eyetracking phase (n = 40). Each phase included two conditions, representing distinct levels of prime-target semantic relatedness: unrelated and related. Mean RT data from the traditional priming (stimuli development) phase guided image selection for the eyetracking experiment. Eyetracking indices of fixation duration and latency of fixation were recorded to capture semantic priming in the eyetracking experiment.
resultsEye fixation data indicated that images related to auditory primes were attended to earlier and attracted significantly greater visual attention than unrelated images. These results mirrored RT data from the traditional priming method, which showed faster RT latencies and more accurate naming performance for related images than for unrelated images.
conclusionsResults support the validity of eyetracking indices of semantic priming and offer a robust testing protocol for future studies in this line of research. Current clinical relevance for people with aphasia is highlighted. Further empirical testing of the psychometric properties of the eyetracking measures in various semantic priming contexts is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.