Retrieving stem meanings in opaque words during auditory lexical processing

Figures & data

Table 1. Stimulus characteristics of opaque prefixed verb targets and the primes in the different conditions.

	Prime condition				Target
	Stem	Transparent	Opaque	Control
Sample item	halen	afhalen	herhalen	afdwalen	BRENGEN
Translation	“take/get”	“take away/out”	“repeat”	“stray (off)”	“bring”
Mean prime frequency	3.24 (0.53)	2.08 (0.63)	2.27 (0.82)	1.90 (0.60)	–
Mean semantic score	–	5.48 (0.61)	1.92 (0.62)	–	–

Note: Semantic relatedness scores reflect the extent to which the transparent and opaque primes are related in meaning to their stem, on a scale of 1–7. Frequencies reflect Lg10CD measures as extracted from SUBTLEX-NL (Keuleers et al., 2010).

Standard deviations are given in parentheses.

Table 2. Target characteristics, for the nominal/adjectival targets, verbal targets, and the combined set.

	Noun/Adj	Verb	Combined
Frequency	2.98 (0.54)	3.34 (0.57)	3.16 (0.57)
Association strength	0.29 (0.16)	0.33 (0.19)	0.31 (0.17)

Note: Mean frequencies are extracted from SUBTLEX-NL (Lg10CD; Keuleers et al., 2010). Association strenghts are calculated based on the primary responses (to stem primes) in the Dutch Association Lexicon (De Deyne et al., 2013).

Standard deviations are given in parentheses.

Figure 1. Violin plots of the log-transformed response times for the control, stem, transparent, and opaque conditions. Black horizontal bars represent condition means; the dotted line represents the mean in the control condition.

Figure 2. Priming effects (in ms) in the stem, transparent, and opaque conditions. Error bars represent ±1 standard error of the sampling distribution of differences.

Table 3. Mean response times to the targets (in ms), priming effects (in ms), and error rates for each condition.

Condition	RT target	Priming effect	Error rate
Control	869 (12.22)	–	3.24% (7/216)
Stem	804 (12.32)	65 (17.35)	1.85% (4/216)
Transparent	817 (12.25)	52 (17.30)	2.78% (6/216)
Opaque	835 (10.51)	34 (16.11)	2.78% (6/216)

Note: Standard errors for RT latencies are given in parentheses.

Table 4. Fixed effects of the predictors in the linear mixed-effect model for response latencies (log-transformed RT), with the reference level of Condition set to the Control condition.

Fixed effects	Estimate (β)	t-value	p-value
(Intercept)	6.743	268.791	<.001
Prime Condition (Control)
Stem	−.067	−3.536	<.001
Transparent	−.053	−3.405	<.001
Opaque	−.035	−2.296	.026
Part of Speech (PoS)	−.038	−2.521	.014
Target Frequency	−.014	−1.208	.238
Prime Frequency	.014	1.833	.070
Trial Number	−.022	−4.895	<.001
ISI	−.002	−.475	.635
Target Duration	.075	6.762	<.001
Prime RT (log)	.045	8.150	<.001
Prime Condition (Control–Stem) x PoS	.006	.380	.705
Prime Condition (Control–Transp.) x PoS	.025	1.668	.099
Prime Condition (Control–Opaque) x PoS	.001	.065	.949

Note: Significant p-values (p < 0.05) are shown bold faced.

Table 5. Fixed effects of the predictors in the linear mixed-effect model for response latencies (log-transformed RT), with the reference level of Condition set to the Opaque condition.

Fixed effects	Estimate (β)	t-value	p-value
(Intercept)	6.708	271.389	<.001
Prime Condition (Opaque)
Control	.035	2.272	.026
Stem	−.032	−1.871	.065
Transparent	−.019	−1.23	.219
Part of Speech (PoS)	−.037	−2.482	.016
Target Frequency	−.014	−1.208	.238
Prime Frequency	.014	1.833	.070
Trial Number	−.022	−4.895	<.001
ISI	−.002	−.475	.635
Target Duration	.075	6.762	<.001
Prime RT (log)	.045	8.150	<.001
Prime Condition (Opaque–Control) x PoS	−.001	−.065	.949
Prime Condition (Opaque–Stem) x PoS	.005	.319	.750
Prime Condition (Opaque–Transp.) x PoS	.024	1.619	.110

Note: Significant p-values (p < 0.05) are shown bold faced.

Figure 3. Log-transformed response times to verb versus noun/adjective targets. Vertical dotted lines represent means.

Keuleers, E., Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2010). SUBTLEX-NL: A new measure for Dutch word frequency based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 643–650. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.643

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

De Deyne, S., Navarro, D. J., & Storms, G. (2013). Better explanations of lexical and semantic cognition using networks derived from continued rather than single-word associations. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 480–498. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0260-7

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/y7swa/.