Testing the direct-access model: GOD does not prime DOG

Testing equivalence with repeated measures: tests of the difference model of two-alternative forced-choice performance

Solving theoretical or empirical issues sometimes involves establishing the equality of two variables with repeated measures. This defies the logic of null hypothesis significance testing, which aims at assessing evidence against the null hypothesis of equality, not for it. In some contexts, equivalence is assessed through regression analysis by testing for zero intercept and unit slope (or simply for unit slope in case that regression is forced through the origin). This paper shows that this approach renders highly inflated Type I error rates under the most common sampling models implied in studies of equivalence. We propose an alternative approach based on omnibus tests of equality of means and variances and in subject-by-subject analyses (where applicable), and we show that these tests have adequate Type I error rates and power. The approach is illustrated with a re-analysis of published data from a signal detection theory experiment with which several hypotheses of equivalence had been tested using only regression analysis. Some further errors and inadequacies of the original analyses are described, and further scrutiny of the data contradict the conclusions raised through inadequate application of regression analyses.

Looks aren't everything: pseudohomophones prime words but nonwords do not

After examining literature that deals with phonological and orthographic effects associated with pseudohomophones, the current effort deviates from the norm by using fewer pseudohomophones (20%) and extending the lags between primes and targets (M = 8). Word and pseudohomophone primes were found to facilitate lexical decision response latencies to word targets. Response latencies to word targets were not influenced by nonword primes, however. The presence of pseudohomophone effects was demonstrated by longer response latencies and higher error rates for pseudohomophones (e.g., DREEM) that were equated in orthography to nonword controls (e.g., DROAM). Despite the frequency effect observed for base words, the pseudohomophones did not exhibit an effect of base word frequency. The results suggest that phonological codes exert an influence on lexical representation but are not frequency sensitive.