1. 1 Strategy Effects in Naming: A Modified Deadline View Thomas M. Spalek & Steve Joordens University of Toronto at Scarbrough

2. 2 Introduction Lupker, Brown and Columbo (1997) showed that context can influence the speed with which a stimulus can be named. - Fast items slow down when mixed with slower stimuli - Slow items speed up when mixed with faster stimuli PureMixed Mixing Effect Monosyllabic (e.g., ball) 508 542 34 Trisyllabic (e.g., permanent) 608 580-28

3. 3 Original Deadline View Monosyllabic Trisyllabic Pure Mono Pure Tri Phonological Code Quality Time Mixed

4. 4 Problems with the Strict Deadline View If deadline was all that was important then there should no longer be any difference between the fast and the slow stimuli in the mixed condition. There should be a dramatic drop in accuracy for the slow stimuli in the mixed condition.

5. 5 Modified Deadline View MonosyllabicTrisyllabic Pure Mono Phonological Code Quality Time Pure Tri Mixed

6. 6 Modified Deadline View’s Strengths Explains why there isn’t much of a change in accuracy because the accuracy criterion must be reached before a response can be given. It also explains why there is still a difference in RTs for the two classes of stimuli, since both the accuracy and the deadline have to be reached before a response is given. Makes a counter-intuitive prediction that as you speed responses in the mixed condition, the frequency effect should get larger.

7. 7 Simulation Purpose: To mathematically instantiate our modifed deadline model, and to see how the frequency effect would change with a changing deadline. Method: Normal distributions were set up to simulate the population RTs for low frequency, and high frequency words. The following parameters were used:  lf = 750 (obtained from pilot study)  hf = 650 (set so that maximum freq. effect = 100)  = 126 (average of the high and low freq data from our pilot study)

8. 8 Simulation Method: > The deadline was manipulated across runs of the simulation. > For each run we randomly sampled 100,000 scores from each distribution, and if the score was before the deadline, then the deadline was used in place of the score. > If the score was greater than the deadline, then the score did not change. > The mean was then calculated for both the low and high frequency items, and a frequency effect calculated.

9. 9 Simulation Deadline Time High FrequencyLow Frequency

10. 10 Simulation Results

11. 11 Experiment 1 Purpose - To test the counterintuitive prediction of the modified deadline view, as well as to see if an instructional strategy leads to the same effects as a contextual strategy. Method - Had participants try to hit certain response windows in different blocks. 525-675 ms in the fast condition, 675-825 ms in the medium condition, and 825-975 in the slow condition.

12. 12 Results

13. 13 Experiment 2 Purpose - To see what happens to the frequency effect when context modulates response time by speeding it up Method - The same trisyllabic words used in Expt. 1 were presented either on their own, or mixed with monosyllabic words.

14. 14 Results

15. 15 Conclusions The modified deadline view addresses the concerns about why a difference still exists between the stimuli, and why a dramatic drop in accuracy is not observed for the slow stimuli in the mixed condition. The counterintuitive prediction of the modified deadline view was borne out. That is that the frequency effect would increase when the class of items is responded to faster (opposite to what is seen in lexical decision).