The sandwich priming paradigm does not reduce lexical competitor effects

Iliyana V. Trifonova and James S. Adelman
University of Warwick

Word count: 11,578 words
Corresponding author:
James S. Adelman
Department of Psychology
University of Warwick
COVENTRY
CV4 7AL
UK.
J.S.Adelman@warwick.ac.uk+44 (0) 24 761 50233

1

Abstract
We investigated the mechanisms underlying sandwich priming, a procedure in which a brief
preprime target presentation precedes the conventional mask-prime-target sequence, used to
study orthographic similarity. Lupker and Davis (2009) showed the sandwich paradigm
enhances orthographic priming effects: With primes moderately related to targets, sandwich
priming produced significant facilitation, but conventional priming did not. They argued that
unlike conventional priming, sandwich priming is not susceptible to an uncontrolledcounteractive inhibitory process, lexical competition, that cancels out moderate facilitation
effects. They suggest lexical competition is eliminated by preactivating the target’s
representation, privileging the target over similar lexical units (competitors). As such, it bettermeasures orthographic relatedness between primes and targets, a key purpose of many priming
studies. We tested whether elimination of lexical competition could indeed account for theobserved orthographic priming boost with sandwich priming. In three lexical decisionexperiments and accompanying simulations with a competitive network model, we comparedpriming effects in three preprime procedures: no preprime (conventional), identity (target)
preprime (sandwich) and competitor preprime (included to exacerbate lexical competition). The
related prime conditions consisted of replaced-letters, shared neighbor (one-letter-different
from both competitor preprime and target), and transposed-all-letter nonword primes. Contrary
to the model’s predictions, the competitor preprime did not attenuate (Experiment 1) or evenreverse the priming effect (Experiment 2). Moreover, the competitor enabled facilitatory
priming that was absent with no preprime (Experiment 3). These data suggested that the2sandwich orthographic boost could not be attributed to reduced lexical competition but rather
to prelexical processes in word recognition.
Keywords: visual word recognition; sandwich priming; lexical decision; orthographic similarity;
lexical inhibition3

Effective reading requires the identiﬁcation by the reader of the words intended by the writer,
in a manner that is invariant or tolerant to sources of variation and distortion related to
typeface, size, viewing conditions, perceptual noise, or writer error. It therefore seems
reasonable that a variety of candidate matches to a stimulus should be considered or activated,and such a selection of candidates has been proposed from some of the earliest models (e.g.,
Rubenstein, Garﬁeld, & Millikan, 1970) of lexical access. How candidates are considered andselected is thus central to reading, and several aspects of this process have been subject to recent
computational and mathematical modeling efforts (e.g., Adelman, 2011; Davis, 2010; Norris &Kinoshita, 2012).
A core range of evidence for evaluating the proposed processes comes from the masked form
priming paradigm developed by Forster and Davis (1984) and ﬁrst used in the context of lexical
selection by Forster, Davis, Schoknecht, and Carter (1987). The ongoing task for the participant
is lexical decision on clearly visible letter string targets in capital letters, but each target ispreceded by a mask (usually of # symbols) and a prime letter string presented in lower case fora duration that is typically between 15 and 70 ms. One major advantage of this procedure is that
due to this brief prime duration, primes are usually not perceived consciously and do not allow
for development of strategic responses from the participants. An example sequence of stimuli isthus ########—tible—TABLE. Baseline performance is established on unrelated trials where theprime shares no letters with the target. This can be compared with cases in which the prime
shares many features in common with the target, and response times (RTs) are typicallyreduced when prime and target are similar, an RT priming effect. Different manipulations of theletters of the target to produce the prime (prime types) differ in their similarity to the target, and4their ability to prime the target, apparently in a graded fashion (see Adelman et al., 2014),
suggesting that candidates cannot be simply categorically divided into consistent orinconsistent.
A major result established with the masked priming paradigm, for example, is that thepresentation of a nonword prime, constructed by replacing one of the target’s letters, such as
tible, produces significantly faster response times in comparison to the unrelated baseline (e.g.
Adelman et al., 2014; Forster et al., 1987). This effect is decreased and not always significant
when two of the letters are replaced (Lupker & Davis, 2009; Perea & Lupker, 2004). Anotherfinding, demonstrated with the masked-priming methodology reflects the letter position
tolerance, rather than letter identity tolerance, of the perceptual system. Perea and Lupker(2003) demonstrated that a prime in which two adjacent letters were transposed (jugde fromtarget JUDGE) effected shorter response times than one in which the same letter positions
contain two replaced letters as in jupte(-JUDGE). This finding has been extended to nonadjacentletter transpositions (e.g., caniso - CASINO; Lupker, Perea, & Davis, 2008; Perea & Lupker,
2004). Guerrera and Forster (2008) tested the limits of the letter position tolerance of the visual
word recognition system and showed that a priming effect was still observed with primes
constructed by adjacent transposition of all the letters in a word except for the external ones
(dsiocnut – DISCOUNT). However, the priming was no longer significant when the primes
were constructed by even more extreme transpositions, such as transposing all the adjacentletters in a word (T-all or transposed-all letter primes; e.g., avacitno-VACATION).

5The magnitude of the effects produced by form-related masked primes have been interpreted as
the degree to which the orthographic codes of the prime and the target match. Thus, results
produced with the masked priming paradigm have served as a reference point for evaluating
models’ predictions regarding the similarity between two strings. One major distinction among
theories is how they account for these graded patterns. Adelman (2011) suggests thatconsidered candidates are gradually activated, and candidates are eliminated fromconsideration as inconsistent features of the stimulus are stochastically perceived. Norris andKinoshita (2012) posit an explicit Bayesian calculation of the likelihood of percepts (the stimulus
perceived with noise) given assumptions about the distributions of words and pseudowords.
Approaches based on the interactive-activation model (McClelland & Rumelhart, 1981) suggestthat the net input to a word unit weighs positive excitatory and negative inhibitory bottom-up
inﬂuences in a way that is often summarized as a match score1. Whether within the interactiveactivation framework or not, the predictions and match scores of orthographic encoding models
have been compared to empirical results produced with the masked priming methodology that
thus served as a validator for the models’ credibility.
Although the magnitude of form priming is usually interpreted as the extent to which
processing during encoding of the prime and the target overlaps, and an approximate string
distance is implied, a limit has been shown in the extent to which a masked form priming effectwas obtained: As Lupker and Davis (2009) have emphasized, the priming effect is no longer

1

Match scores may also reflect only the excitatory bottom-up influences and not the inhibitory ones. In manymodels, they are perfectly complementary; where they are not, the (asymptotic) net input – reflecting both matchand mismatch components – is, of course, the relevant factor.

6present when a prime includes more extreme deviations from the target. This introduces a limitof the orthographic priming continuum that is not necessarily present in models’ predictions
and to an extent is also not consistent with commonsense logic. If the effect of a prime
produced by a single transposition of adjacent letters from the target is very similar to that froma prime that is identical (except for case) to the target, it is perhaps, then, surprising that a prime
with four such transpositions in an eight-letter target produces no signiﬁcant priming (Guerrera& Forster, 2008); if copmuter is barely different from COMPUTER, why is ocpmture not stillquite similar?
And indeed, Lupker and Davis reported high match scores between transposed all-letter primes
and their base words from the relative open-bigram model (Grainger & van Heuven, 2003), theSERIOL model (Whitney, 2001) and previous versions of Davis’s spatial coding model (Davis,
1999), suggesting that all those predicted facilitation priming effects, which were not significant
in the masked-priming studies of Guerrera and Forster and Lupker and Davis. Likewise, it canbe seen as surprising that a prime that matches ﬁve out of eight letters of a target produced nopriming compared to control (Schoonbaert & Grainger, 2004) given these ﬁve matching lettersmust produce more facilitation than no matching letters, and the three mismatching letters must
produce less inhibition than eight mismatching letters.
Lupker and Davis (2009) argued that primes that are moderately related to targets, such astransposed all-letter primes and primes containing replacement of more than two letters, were
not able to produce facilitation effects not due to the insufficient orthographic similarity
between them and the targets, but due to inhibitory processes that could cancel out facilitation.

7

The process they have claimed to be responsible is lexical competition, that is, lateral inhibition
among word units. Such an inhibitory process is consistent with evidence that word primes thatare orthographic neighbors (words of equal length that differ by only one letter in the same
position, such as take – cake or take – tape; Coltheart, Davelaar, Jonasson, & Besner, 1977) oftargets can produce inhibitory rather than facilitatory priming (e.g., Davis & Lupker, 2006), thatwords with orthographic neighbors are typically less primeable (e.g., Forster et al., 1987), andthat primes that are neighbors of targets are less effective if prime and target share othercommon neighbors (“shared neighbors”: Van Heuven, Dijkstra, Grainger, & Schriefers, 2001).
An example of a shared-neighbor for the prime-target relationship azound-ABOUND is the word
around, which is a neighbor of both the prime and the target. Davis (2003) argues that nonword
primes, such as azound are less effective as they not only preactivate the representation of thetarget due to form similarity, but also representations of the target’s neighbor, thus introducing
competition on the word level that results in suppression of the target’s activation andattenuation of the priming effect.
In the same competitive network framework, Lupker and Davis suggested that primes
moderately close to the target were likely to resemble and generate more activation torepresentations of other lexical units, which once activated would inhibit the target and could
cancel out possible facilitation effects which would therefore remain unobserved.In such alexical competition account, whilst the prime avacitno (in avacitno-VACATION) is reasonably
similar to the target VACATION, it is more similar to the task-irrelevant word AVIATION. The
closer neighbor AVIATION becomes more activated than VACATION, and thus inhibits theword node for VACATION, eliminating any possible priming for that target. Lupker and Davis
8thus suggested that if lexical competition effects were filtered out, primes moderately related totargets would be able to produce facilitation.
The conventional masked priming paradigm, according to Lupker and Davis (2009), is thus
susceptible to counteractive inhibitory processes and therefore is not an appropriate procedure
to directly evaluate orthographic encoding schemes. Thus, they explained the absence of these
expected facilitatory priming effects by seeking limitations in the methodology that had beenused. They sought to design a paradigm that would allow for evaluation of the matches ofstimuli that are more distant from the target, by eliminating or reducing lexical competition
effects on the target. One route to achieving this requires preventing the activation of non-targetwords. Lupker and Davis sought to do so by taking advantage of lexical competition by preactivating the target, by presenting it for a short duration. The pre-activated target then itself
inhibits potential competitors and so is not subject to inhibition itself. That is, a possible
stimulus sequence is ########—VACATION—avacitno—VACATION, which was termed asandwich prime because the prime is sandwiched between two presentations of the target.
Simulations of an otherwise unpublished hybrid of spatial coding and interactive activation
models gave the prediction that AVIATION would no longer become active, and in the absenceof such lexical competition, the target activation of VACATION at the end of the prime stimulus
was not at ﬂoor. Instead, the target activation was driven by the match score of prime and target
so that priming was now predicted for the transposed all-letters prime relative to control.
Lupker and Davis (2009) conﬁrmed this prediction empirically in their ﬁrst experiment: In the
sandwich priming paradigm, the transposed all-letters prime produced shorter response times

9than an unrelated (sandwiched) prime; in contrast, the non-sandwiched version showed nopriming relative to the non-sandwich control. In their second experiment, they extended theﬁnding to the case of primes with several replaced letters, with a parametric manipulation of
number of replaced letters from one through ﬁve in a seven-letter target. In the standard nonsandwiched case, priming was shown only for one- and two-letter-different primes. In the
sandwiched case, priming was greater for one- through three-letter-different primes, so thatpriming for the three-letter different case was signiﬁcant. These data patterns were indeed
consistent with Lupker and Davis’s (2009) lexical inhibition account. The authors interpreted
the results as an evidence that the sandwich priming procedure successfully eliminated lexicalcompetition effects and as such it overcame certain limitations of the original masked priming
and was a better tool for evaluating orthographic input coding models. For these reasons, thesandwich priming procedure has already been employed in several studies researchingorthographic processes so far (e.g. Ktori, Grainger, Dufau, & Holcomb, 2012; Ktori, Kingma,
Hannagan, Holcomb, & Grainger, 2014; Lupker, Zhang, Perry, & Davis, 2015).
The present study aimed to test Lupker and Davis’s (2009) interpretation that the enhanced
form priming effects produced with the sandwich priming paradigm were due to theelimination of lexical competition processes. Although the explanation of Lupker and Davis isconsistent with their data, other processes might instead be responsible for the obtained results.
A possible alternative explanation is that the results were driven by lower-level bottom-up
processes that do not reflect lexical stages and lexical competition in particular. As there is anadditional brief presentation of a prime, extra complexity is added in the sandwich priming
procedure and the mechanisms that underlie the processing of two masked primes are not10entirely transparent. The additional initial letter string – the preprime – is another brief visual
event that provides additional processing information and its presentation prolongs the time
until the presentation of the target. It is not exactly clear what the interaction is between theprime and preprime and whether the same mechanisms are involved and just multiplied by
two in a sequential presentation of two brief primes and in a presentation of a single brief
prime, immediately followed by the target.
As we consider the data provided by Lupker and Davis (2009) to be inconclusive for thedetermination of the nature of the responsible processes, we designed several experiments that
aimed to provide further evidence of whether the enhanced form priming effects were causedby the modulation of lexical competition mechanisms or not. The way we chose to do that was
by following the interactive activation framework and retaining lexical competition bypresenting lexical competitor of the target as a preprime, rather than an identical stimulus. If
primes can be ineffective due to the role of lexical inhibition – and preprimes can modulate
lexical inhibition – as Lupker and Davis propose, then the pre-activating a competitive
alternative should exacerbate inhibition, which should if anything further attenuate priming
effects. In contrast, if a presentation of a stimulus that resembles both the related prime and thetarget does not produce any particular reduction in the strength of priming or indeed increases
it, this would provide some evidence that the results obtained with a sandwich priming were
not caused by reduction of lexical competition effects, but rather by some other mechanism,
such as prelexical bottom-up processes.

11

The present work consists of three experiments in total, as well as corresponding simulations ofthese experiments. The simulations were run with the Spatial Coding Model (Davis, 2010). Thismodel represents a more recent version of the competitive network system, used for thesimulations in the study of Lupker and Davis (2009). The model is based on the interactive
activation model (McClelland & Rumelhart, 1981), but has a different implemented encoding
scheme. In the interactive activation’s slot-based encoding scheme, two letters with the same
letter identity are treated as different letters if they are in different positions and therefore jugde
is as similar to judge as is jupte. The Spatial Coding Model, however, could account fortransposed-letter effects with its two-dimensional spatial coding scheme, in which letter
position and identities are encoded as spatial patterns of values.
The computational modelling methodology could provide an insight as to how the lexicalinhibition elimination account of sandwich priming, suggested by Lupker and Davis, fits the
specific prediction of the model, regarding the effect of a competitor preprime, based on theproperties of the stimuli, such as frequencies and orthographic neighborhoods of the preprimes,
primes and targets. The model’s predictions and the lexical inhibition account of the sandwich
priming effects could then be evaluated by a comparison with the observed empirical data.
The nature of the sandwich priming effects was explored in the context of Lupker and Davis’s(2009) Experiment 2 stimuli with replaced-letter primes (Experiment 1), and new stimuli withshared-neighbor primes (Experiment 2) and transposed-all letter primes (Experiment 3).

Experiment 1
12

Our initial examination of the question was based on the stimuli used in Lupker and Davis’s(2009) Experiment 2 to maintain continuity with the original work.
MethodParticipants
Ninety students or members of staff from the University of Warwick took part in theexperiment. All reported English as their native language. They either received course credit orwere paid £3 for their participation.
DesignThree preprime types (none, identity, competitor), that generated three different procedures —conventional masked priming, sandwich masked priming and competitor-modified-sandwichmasked priming — were crossed with six prime types (1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-letters different, andall-letter different control) within-subjects. Counterbalancing was performed by first dividing
the items into three equal different preprime type trials for words and nonwords respectively.
These comprised of 20 trials per preprime type per target type (each set taken consecutively
from the stimulus list of the original paper). The preprime conditions were thencounterbalanced in three lists. Each of these lists was transformed into six different versions forthe counterbalancing of the prime type conditions. In these lists, the six levels of the prime typewere cycled (one-by-one in the order of targets in the original stimulus list). The levels of thetwo factors appeared equal times in each of the lists. Each of the eighteen resulting conditions
appeared either 3 or 4 times in a list for each target type, but the total frequency of the13conditions was equalised over all the counterbalancing lists, as every combination of preprime
type, prime type and target item appeared exactly once across the eighteen lists. All trials were
newly randomly intermixed for each participant2.
Stimuli
The 60 seven-letter words and 60 matched pseudoword foils were taken from Lupker andDavis’s (2009) Experiment 2, along with their primes. The mean frequency reported by theauthors was 53.1 per million (CELEX; Baayen, Piepenbrock, & van Rijn, 1993; range 20–145).
The mean SUBTLEX-UK Zipf frequency was 4.45 (range 2.79 - 5.2; Van Heuven, Mandera,
Keuleers, & Brysbaert, 2014). The mean neighborhood size (number of orthographic neighbors,
Coltheart N; Coltheart et al., 1977) was 0.3 (range 0 – 2). These were augmented with thecompetitor stimulus for each word, which was selected to be the seven-letter word with theleast string edit distance (the number or cost of operations to transform one string to another) to
the target, using a modified edit distance designed to reflect empirical results from priming3(e.g., PROTECT for PROJECT, or HALFWAY for HOLIDAY). The mean CELEX frequency ofthe competitor words was 9.14 per million (range 0.34 – 216.54). The mean SUBTLEX-UK Zipf
frequency was 3.13 (range 1.47 – 5.14). The mean neighborhood size was 0.47 (range 0 – 5).
Neighborhood size and CELEX frequency properties were obtained with N-Watch (Davis,
2005). The CELEX frequency of the competitor was higher than the target in only 3 out of the 60
target-competitor pairs, two of which had also a higher SUBTLEX-UK Zipf frequency. A non-

2

DMDX scripts for all experiments are made available at: http://adelmanlab.org/sandwich/ .
In particular: The cost of an internal replacement was 1, the cost of an initial replacement was 6, the cost of a
final replacement was 5, and the cost of the first internal transposition was 1.
3

14

identical pseudoword was constructed for each foil by altering one letter to act as a competitor
preprime for the nonword trials. The preprime for the sandwich priming condition in the
nonword trials was the nonword foil. The prime conditions in the nonword trials matched thosein the word trials and comprised of primes that differed from the nonword foils by one, two,
three, four, five and seven letters. All stimuli for this experiment are listed in Appendix A.
Procedure
Participants were instructed that their task was to identify whether stimuli presented in capitalletters were real English words or nonsense words, indicating the former by pressing the yes
key (the right shift key labeled as such) or the no key (the left shift key labeled as such). The
experimental trials were preceded by ten practice trials, after which participants were given theopportunity to ask for clariﬁcation. On each trial, a ######## mask in 20-point Courier New waspresented for 500ms. When the preprime was identity (the original sandwich priming), thetarget stimulus was then presented at 7.5-point size for 33ms. When the preprime wascompetitor (the new modified-competitior sandwich priming), the competitor was thenpresented at 7.5-point size for 33ms. When there was no preprime (conventional masked
priming), presentation proceeded immediately from the mask to the prime. The prime waspresented for 50ms at 12.5-point size. The target was then presented at 20-point size until theparticipant responded or 2000ms had elapsed. Feedback was given after every trial. The
paradigms for this and subsequent experiments were approved by the University of Warwick
Department of Psychology Research Ethics Committee on its delegated authority for student
projects.

15

Results
Response Time
Data analyses were performed with the packages lme4 (Bates, Maechler, Bolker, & Walker,2015), car (Fox & Weisberg, 2011) and phia (De Rosario-Martinez, 2013) as implemented in R
version 3.4.1 (R Core Team, 2017). In this and the subsequent analyses, linear mixed-effects
models were initially fitted with their full random structure and were later simplified in thecases in which they failed to converge (Barr, Levy, Scheepers, & Tily, 2013).
Mean response times and error rates for word trials in Experiment 1 are shown in Table 1. Trials
with response times shorter than 150 ms or longer than 1500 ms were excluded from the latency
analyses4, as were incorrect trials. A linear mixed-effects model was fitted with preprime type,prime type and their interaction as fixed factors. By-subject and by-items intercepts and slopes
for preprime type and prime type were added as random factors. Type II Wald chi-square tests
were performed on the fitted model to establish the significance of the fixed main effects as wellas their interaction. The results revealed a main effect of prime type, χ2(5) = 80.076, p < .001; anda significant interaction between prime type and preprime type, χ2(10) = 19.957, p = .03. The
effect of preprime type was not significant, χ2(2) = 3.47, p = .176. Looking at pairs of preprime
types, the preprime by prime interaction was only significant for the comparison of the identity
and no preprime conditions, χ2(5) = 15.357, p = .009. Examination of Figure 1 clearly shows that

4

These data, and analogous data of subsequent experiments, are available at http://adelmanlab.org/sandwich/ .

16this must be driven by greater priming in the identity (sandwich) condition than the nopreprime (conventional) condition. The priming in the competitor condition differedsignificantly from neither, χ2(5) = 8.937, p = .112, vs. identity, and χ2(5) = 5.616, p = .345, vs. no
preprime. To investigate the priming effect further, we constructed post-hoc contrasts for eachof the related prime conditions. We used the Benjamini & Yekutieli (2001) adjustment method tocontrol false discovery rate.
One-letter-different primes Comparing only one-letter-different and control (all-letter-different
primes), the interaction with prime type showed differential priming, χ2(2) = 9.433, p = .009. Thispriming was 59 ms in the identity condition, 41 ms in the competitor condition, and 24 ms in the
no-preprime condition, all of which were significant, χ2(1) = 46.353, p < .001; χ2(1) = 20.702, p <.001; χ2(1) = 7.028, p = .015, respectively. Contrasts between the priming in each two of the
preprime conditions showed that the priming in the identity preprime condition differedsignificantly from the priming in the no preprime condition, χ2(1) = 9.418, p = .012, but not fromthe priming in the competitor condition, χ2(1) = 2.726, p = .271, which also did not differ
significantly from the priming in the no preprime condition, χ2(1) = 1.99, p = .29.
Two-letter-different primes Priming of 42 ms for the identity condition was significant, χ2(1) =23.296, p < .001. The 21 ms priming effect in the competitor condition and the 17 ms priming
effect in the conventional no-preprime condition were marginally significant, χ2(1) = 5.515, p =.052; χ2(1) = 4.324, p = .069. These priming effects did not differ significantly, interaction χ2(2) =4.996, p = .082.

17

Three-letter-different primes When the prime was three-letter different, it produced significant
facilitation relative to the control only in the identity preprime condition: χ2(1) = 16.777, p < .001.
It was not significant in the no preprime condition, χ2(1) = 2.59, p = .296, nor in the competitor
preprime condition, χ2(1) < 1.
Four- and five-letter-different primes The effect of the four-letter and five-letter different primes
was not significant in any of the preprime conditions, and there were no interactions between
prime type and preprime type.
Accuracy
A generalized linear mixed-effects model with binomial distribution was fitted for the word
accuracy analyses with prime type, target type and their interaction as fixed factors and bysubjects and by-items intercepts and slopes for preprime type as random factors. The effect ofprime type was significant, χ2(5) = 12.383, p = .03. The accuracy of the participants decreased
with the increase of the number of replaced letters in the primes.
Nonword Data
Response Time Mean response times and error rates for nonword trials in Experiment 1 areshown in Table 2. Trials with response times shorter than 150 ms or longer than 1500 ms were
excluded from the latency analyses. A linear mixed-effects model was fitted with preprime
type, prime type and their interaction as fixed factors and by-subject and by-items intercepts
and slopes for preprime type as random factors. The results showed a main effect of preprime
type, χ2(2) = 8.938, p = .011. The effect was driven by the significant difference between the18

identity preprime condition and the no preprime condition, χ2(1) = 8.96, p = .003. Overall,participants were significantly faster when the target foil was presented as a preprime thanwhen there was no preprime.
Accuracy A generalized linear mixed-effects model with binomial distribution was fitted withprime type, target type and their interaction as fixed factors and by-subjects and by-items
intercepts and slopes for preprime type as random factors. The interaction between preprime
type and prime type was significant, χ2(10) = 29.048, p = .001. Post-hoc contrasts with Benjamini& Yekutieli (2001) adjustment for the one-letter-different prime type and the all-letter-different
prime type as a control showed a significant facilitation only in the identity preprime condition,
χ2(1) = 8.91, p = .016. Contrasts between the priming in each two of the preprime conditions
showed that the priming in the identity preprime condition differed significantly from thepriming in both competitor preprime condition, χ2(1) = 12.264, p = .003, and no preprime
condition, χ2(1) = 5.737, p = .046. As could be observed in Table 2, however, the pattern of results
did not exhibit a consistent structure that could lead to a straightforward interpretation. A
difference in priming between the identity preprime and the competitor and no preprime
conditions was also observed in the five-letter-different prime condition, χ2(1) = 9.475, p = .006;
χ2(1) = 11.872, p = .003, in which the accuracy of participants in the identity preprime condition
increased in comparison to the more related prime conditions.

Simulation of Experiment 1
Method19

Each of the simulations in the present work was run on the same word trials stimuli as the onesin the corresponding experiment. The easyNet simulation software(http://adelmanlab.org/easyNet/) was used for all the simulations. A vocabulary of 30606 words
from the CELEX database (Baayen, Piepenbrock, & van Rijn, 1993) was loaded in the Spatial
Coding Model (Davis, 2010). The model was tested with its default parameters.
The procedure of the conventional masked priming included a presentation of the prime for 50
cycles, followed by the presentation of the target. The sandwich priming procedures wereidentical, except for the 33 cycles presentation of the preprime (either the target itself or the“competitor” word orthographically related to the target) before the prime. As the responsetime in the model was measured from the onset of the first priming event, the value of 50 was
subtracted from the response times in the no preprime trials and the value of 83 was subtracted
from the response times in the sandwich priming trials. The resulting value therefore
represented the response time from the target onset until the response.
Results
The model recognized correctly all the target stimuli as words. As in the Lupker and Davis(2009) study, we will focus on the pattern predicted by the model, rather than on the results ofstatistical analyses as the model’s response times do not include participant variability andtherefore numerically small differences produce statistically significant results. Following
Davis’s (2010) calibration of parameters, we consider one cycle priming effect to be comparable
to 1 ms priming.

20

As previously, the model predicted a priming boost in the identity preprime (original sandwich
priming) condition in which the target was presented before the prime, relative to the no
preprime condition. In the one, two and three -letter different priming conditions, the model
predicted a priming effect of 49, 36 and 22 cycles, respectively. In the no preprime condition, thepredicted priming effect for the same priming conditions was 29, 11 and 3 cycles, respectively.
Thus, the model fitted the portion of the experiment that was a (within-subject mixed-list)
replication well. However, as can be observed in the right panel of Figure 1, the presentation of
a competitor preprime attenuated the priming effect, relative to the no preprime condition. The
predicted priming after the presentation of a competitor preprime was consistently smaller thanthe priming effect in the no preprime condition. In the one, two and three-letter different
priming conditions, the effect was decresed to the values 16, 2 and -2 cycles.

Discussion
The response time results of Experiment 1 demonstrated the expected sandwich priming boostof the orthographic priming effect evident in the significantly larger priming that was observed
when the target was presented before as a preprime, than when the original masked priming
paradigm was employed. Apart from producing a bigger size of the effect, the presentation of
the target before the prime led to a significant priming effect in the three-letter different prime
condition that was not observed in the no preprime condition. These results replicated thosereported by Lupker and Davis (2009) and matched the prediction of the Spatial Coding Model.
However, contrary to the model’s predictions and the hypothesis that a preprime presentation21

addresses lexical competition effects, the presentation of the competitor preprime did notattenuate the priming effect relative to the one observed in the no preprime condition. As thepriming effect of the one-letter different condition did not differ significantly between theidentity and the competitor conditions, but only between the identity and the no preprime
conditions, if anything, there was a trend of the competitor preprime towards producing aslight boost, rather than attenuating the priming effect.
Experiment 1 gave no evidence that lexical competition could eliminate priming when an
attempt was made to inject lexical competition with an initial prime that was the closest
competitor of the target. However, the absence of inhibitory effect might be attributed to the
distance of preprimes to targets, because Lupker and Davis (2009) chose many targets that had
no one-letter-different neighbors. Therefore, as potential competitors, they might have beenineffective because they were not sufﬁciently supported by the subsequent presentations of theprime and the target or because only near neighbors have inhibitory links (cf. Davis & Lupker,
2006). In interactive-activation-based models (McClelland & Rumelhart, 1981), such as theSpatial Coding Model (Davis, 2010), nodes representating words very similar to targets, such as
target’s orthographic neighbors, receive more activation upon target’s presentation as moreletter nodes consistent with the input receive excitation and feedforward to competitor word
nodes. The higher the activity level of a word node, the stronger the inhibitory effects it
produces on other word nodes. As the primes in Experiment 1 were constructed by replacing
letters from targets and targets were in most of the cases more than one-letter-different from thecompetitors, the activity of the competitor word node could have dropped after thepresentation of the prime and subsequently of the target, resulting in a weaker influence of the22competitor preprimes. Figure 2 confirms this concern and illustrates how the activity of thecompetitor word node could not be sustained by the prime and dropped with its presentation
after the 33th cycle in a trial example from the simulation of Experiment 1. Conversely, as theprime was a target-only neighbor, the activity of the target node rapidly increased with theprime presentation. The time the target needed to reach a recognition threshold was thus not
dramatically delayed by the preprime presentation of the competitor. This example indicatesthat the distance between the competitor and the prime and between the competitor and thetarget could partially explain the preserved facilitation pattern in the competitor preprime
condition in Experiment 1 and the lack of a reversed priming effect in the simulation ofExperiment 1.
Another reason of the lack of inhibitory effects in the competitor preprime condition might
concern the relative frequency of competitors and targets. As Lupker and Davis’s (2009) stimuli
included high frequency targets, only in 5% of the competitor-target pairs was the competitor amore frequent word than the target. In interactive-activation terms, higher frequency words
have higher resting levels, therefore reach positive activation levels sooner, and therefore
produce more inhibition to other word nodes. This hypothesis has been supported by evidence
from previous studies demonstrating that higher frequency target neighbor word primes
produce stronger inhibitory effects than lower frequency ones (Davis & Lupker, 2006; Segui &Grainger, 1990).
The results of Experiment 1 showed no signs of inhibitory effects produced by the competitor
preprime. There is a possibility that these results could be attributed to the properties of the23

stimuli and the low competitiveness of the competitors. Partially, this interpretation is
supported by the results of the simulation, which demonstrated inhibitory influence andattenuated facilitation effect in the competitor preprime condition, however, did not indicate areversal of the priming effect as a prediction of the model. An important question arises at thismoment. If we accept that words closest in form to targets are their strongest competitors, andthat the competitors in Experiment 1 are not inhibitory enough, then we should accept that thetargets in Experiment 1, with their low neighborhood density properties, high word frequencies
and lack of high frequency neighbors, are not prone to the influence of a strong lexicalcompetition. If this is the case, why would the large priming boost produced with the original
sandwich priming paradigm with these stimuli be attributed to a decreased lexical competition?
We continue our investigation of the nature of the sandwich priming effects with a selection of
new stimuli.

Experiment 2
Experiment 2 addressed the aforementioned concerns regarding the similarity among stimuli
by using only stimuli that were one letter different from each other. That is, primes were
Coltheart neighbors of targets (e.g. azound - ABOUND) and potential competitors were
Coltheart neighbors of both, that is, shared neighbors (e.g. AROUND-azound-ABOUND). Prior
research has found that prime-target combinations for which such shared neighbors exist areless effective (Davis & Lupker, 2006; Van Heuven et al., 2001). Moreover, to enhance the scopefor inhibition, the potential competitor was chosen to be of higher frequency than the target
24

(Davis & Lupker; Segui & Grainger, 1990). In interactive-activation framework (McClelland &Rumelhart, 1981), the high-frequency neighbor competitor should get activated more rapidly
than a low frequency word due to its higher resting level and its activation levels should
increase dramatically after the presentation of the neighbor prime and the neighbor target,
eventually resulting in suppressing the target’s activity through inhibitory lateral connections.
The expectation is, that if the preprime presentation in a sandwich priming paradigm affects
lexical competition, such a strong competitor should reverse or at least decrease the facilitation
effect that would be observed with the conventional masked priming paradigm.

MethodParticipants
One hundred eighteen native English speakers took part in this experiment. They were
undergraduate students at the University of Warwick and received course credit for their
participation. The last four participants were replacements for those with low accuracy scores(correct on less than 75% of the trials), leaving data from 114 for analysis.
DesignThe three types of preprime type (identity, competitor, none) were crossed within-subjects withprime relatedness, with the related prime type being shared neighbor. The six conditions wererotated over the targets to produce six counterbalancing lists. All trials were randomlyintermixed anew for each participant.

25

Stimuli
Seventy-eight six-letter words with higher frequency neighbors were chosen as word targets.
They had a mean CELEX frequency of 3.69 per million (range 0.56 - 15.87), mean SUBTLEX log
frequency Zipf 3.18 (range 1.47 – 4.22) and only one Coltheart neighbor that was used as acompetitor preprime. The targets’ neighbors had higher frequencies than the targets. Theirmean CELEX frequency was 26.751 per million (range 1.01 - 503.41), mean SUBTLEX log
frequency Zipf 3.83 (range 2.11 – 5.86); mean neighborhood size 2.27 (range 1 – 9). A sharedneighbor pseudoword was constructed for each preprime condition to be the related prime forthese stimuli.
Seventy-eight further six-letter words were chosen to be the “competitor” preprimes of the
nonword foils; nonword foils were constructed by changing one letter of these; and sharedneighbor primes were constructed by changing that letter again. Unrelated primes wereconstructed for each preprime condition by randomly selecting six letters without replacementthat were in neither competitor nor target. The nonword foils served as preprimes in theidentity preprime condition, nonword trials. All stimuli for this experiment are listed inAppendix B.
Procedure
The procedure was identical to that of Experiment 1.

Results

26

Response Time
Trials in which the response took less than 150 ms or longer than 1500 ms or was incorrect were
excluded from the response time analyses.5 Mean response times and error rates by condition
for word trials are displayed in Table 3. A linear mixed-effects model was fitted with preprime
type, prime type and their interaction as fixed factors. The random effects ultimately includedin the model were the by-subject and by-items intercepts and slopes for preprime type andprime type, as well as the by-items slopes for their interaction. The effect of prime type wassignificant χ2(1) = 62.404, p < .001. The effect of preprime type was not significant, χ2(2) = 3.74, p= .154, nor was the interaction between preprime type and prime type, χ2(2) = 1.59, p = .451. The
difference between the unrelated and related primes was significant in all preprime conditions:
identity, χ2(1) = 25.923, p < .001; competitor, χ2(1) = 28.888, p < .001; no preprime, χ2(1) = 15.34, p <.001.
Accuracy
A generalized linear mixed-effects model with binomial distribution was fitted for the word
accuracy analyses with preprime type, prime type and their interaction as fixed factors and bysubjects and by-items intercepts and slopes for preprime type, prime type and their interaction
as random factors. The effects of preprime type and prime type were both significant, χ2(2) =8.402, p = .015; χ2(1) = 8.498, p = .004. The interaction between the two factors was not significant,χ2(2) = 3.389, p = .183. In general, participants made significantly fewer errors in the no preprime

5

In addition, data from the words navels, quotas, usable, rectal, sulked, convex in Experiment 2 and navels andportly in Experiment 3 were excluded from the analyses as the accuracy of those items was less than 60%.

27

condition than in the identity preprime, χ2(1) = 5.496, p = .019, and in the competitor preprime
conditions, χ2(1) = 6.14, p = .013. They were also significantly more accurate when the prime wasrelated than when it was unrelated, χ2(1) = 7.957, p = .005.
Nonword Data
Response Time Mean response times and error rates for nonword trials in Experiment 2 aredisplayed in Table 4. Trials with response times shorter than 150 ms or longer than 1500 ms
were excluded from the latency analyses. In addition, items with accuracy less than 60% were
not included in the analyses. A linear mixed-effects model was fitted with preprime type, prime
type and their interaction as fixed factors and by-subject and by-items intercepts and slopes forpreprime type and prime types as random factors. The results revealed a main effect ofpreprime type, χ2(2) = 9.037, p = .011. The effect was driven by the significant difference between
the identity preprime condition and the condition with no preprime, χ2(1) = 9.012, p = .003.
Participants were faster to reject nonword foils when the foils were presented as preprimes thanwhen there were no preprimes.
Accuracy A generalized linear mixed-effects model with binomial distribution was fitted withpreprime type, prime type and their interaction as fixed factors and by-subjects and by-items
intercepts and slopes for preprime type, prime type and their interaction as random factors. The
results revealed a significant interaction between preprime type and prime type, χ2(2) = 8.891, p= .012. The difference between the unrelated and related prime conditions was significant only
when there was no preprime, χ2(1) = 8.655, p = .003. In this preprime condition, participants
were significantly more accurate after a related prime, than after an unrelated one.
28

Simulation of Experiment 2
Experiment 2 was simulated with the same method as for Experiment 1. The model recognizedcorrectly all the target stimuli as words. Mean predicted response times (cycles) are included inTable 3. The model predicted a small facilitation priming of 3 cycles in the no preprime
condition, thus underestimating the effect in comparison to the empirical results. This priming
effect was enhanced significantly in the identity preprime, in which it was 37 cycles, matching
the size of the one observed in the human data. Critically, the model predicted a strong
inhibitory effect (-42 cycles) in the competitor preprime condition.

Discussion
The results from Experiment 2 showed no sign of inhibitory effect as a result of the highfrequency neighbor presentation before the prime. There was a significant facilitatory priming
effect in the competitor preprime condition that was numerically bigger than the priming effectin the no preprime condition. These results contrasted the prediction of the Spatial Coding
Model (2010) of a strong inhibitory effect in the competitor preprime condition and the claimthat the preprime presentation addresses counteractive inhibitory effects produced by lexicalcompetition (Lupker & Davis, 2009). As the prediction of the model in the simulation ofExperiment 2 was specific to the stimuli of Experiment 2, it verified the strong competitive29

environment with these items in the competitor preprime condition, according to theinteractive-activation account.

Experiment 3
In Experiment 3, we sought to extend the results of Experiment 2 to the case of transposed-all
primes, which were the other motivating case for the development of sandwich priming. As
previous studies have shown no significant priming effect of transposed-all letter primes
relative to control when the conventional masked priming paradigm was used (Guerrera &Forster, 2008) and significant facilitation effect with the sandwich priming paradigm (Lupker &Davis’s, 2009, Experiment 1), a comparison between these two procedures and a competitor
sandwich would be informative of the mechanisms triggered by the additional presentation of apreprime. If a significant facilitation effect could be obtained with transposed-all primes and acompetitor preprime, that could be considered as evidence that a preprime related to the target
acted as an attenuated version of a sandwich prime and did not affect lexical competition
processes. If, on the contrary, such a presentation reversed the direction of the effect and led toinhibitory effect on the target recognition, that would provide a strong evidence towards alexical competition account of sandwich priming.

MethodParticipants30

Sixty-five undergraduate students from the University of Warwick took part in the experimentfor course credit. All of them reported English as their native language. Participants who were
accurate in less than 75% of the trials (5 people) were replaced, so data from 60 were analysed.
Stimuli
The stimuli were the same as those in Experiment 2, except the shared neighbor prime was
replaced with the transposed-all prime (e.g., lbaehc-BLEACH) and the randomly generated
unrelated primes were resampled. All stimuli for this experiment are listed in Appendix C.
Procedure
The procedure was the same as Experiments 1 and 2.

Results
Response Time
Word trials with incorrect responses and those with response times shorter than 150 ms or
longer than 1500 ms were excluded from the RT analysis. Mean response times and error rates
by condition are shown in Table 5. A linear mixed-effects model was fitted with preprime type,prime type and their interaction as fixed factors. The full random structure was successfully
included in the model. The random effects were the by-subject and by-items intercepts andslopes for preprime type, prime type and their interaction. The effect of prime type wassignificant χ2(1) = 23.759, p < .001. The interaction between preprime type and prime type wasalso significant χ2(2) = 13.042, p = .001. The effect of preprime type was not significant, χ2(2) =31

2.731, p = .255. The interaction was driven by the significantly greater facilitatory priming effectproduced in the two sandwich conditions in comparison to the one produced in the no
preprime condition. Contrasts between the preprime conditions showed that the difference
between the priming in the identity preprime condition and the no preprime condition was
significant, χ2(1) = 4.965, p = .026, as was the difference between the competitor preprime andthe no preprime condition χ2(1) = 12.93, p < .001. The difference between the identity preprime
condition and the competitor preprime condition was not significant χ2(1) = 1.673, p = .196.
Pairwise comparisons between the two priming conditions for each of the preprime conditions
showed that the difference between the unrelated and related primes was significant in theidentity preprime condition, χ2(1) = 13.272, p < .001; and in the competitor preprime condition,
χ2(1) = 31.201, p < .001; but not in the no preprime condition, χ2(1) < 1.
Accuracy
A generalized linear mixed-effects model with binomial distribution was fitted for the word
accuracy analyses with preprime type, prime type and their interaction as fixed factors and bysubjects and by-items intercepts and slopes for preprime type as random factors. The effect ofprime type was significant, χ2(1) = 16.89, p < .001. Participants were significantly more accurate
when the prime was related than when it was unrelated.
Nonword Data
Response Time Mean response times and error rates for nonword trials in Experiment 3 aredisplayed in Table 6. Trials with response times shorter than 150 ms or longer than 1500 ms
were excluded from the latency analyses. In addition, items with accuracy less than 60% were32not included in the analyses. A linear mixed-effects model was fitted with preprime type, prime
type and their interaction as fixed factors and by-subject and by-items intercepts and slopes forpreprime type, prime types and their interaction as random factors. The effect of prime typewas significant, χ2(1) = 4.097, p = .043. Participants were faster to reject nonword foils when theprimes were related, than when the primes were not related.
Accuracy A generalized linear mixed-effects model with binomial distribution was fitted for the
nonword accuracy analyses with the same structure as the one in the nonword latency analyses.
The results did not reveal any significant effects.

Simulation of Experiment 3
Experiment 3 was simulated with the same method as for Experiments 1 and 2. The modelrecognized correctly all the target stimuli as words. Mean predicted response times (cycles) are
included in Table 5. The model predicted a 1 cycle facilitation effect in the no preprime
condition, which was enhanced to 14 cycles in the identity preprime condition. Crucially,
contrary to the observed results in the competitor preprime condition in Experiment 3, themodel predicted a 1 cycle inhibitory effect in this condition, rather than a priming boost relative
to the no preprime condition.

Discussion

33

The results in Experiment 3 showed a significant facilitation priming effect when the preprime
was a high frequency neighbor and this effect was not only in the same direction as the identity
preprime condition, but also numerically greater. The model’s prediction did not match theempirical results as it included a priming boost relative to the conventional masked-priming
paradigm only in the identity preprime condition. The evidence again ran in the opposite
direction to that predicted by the idea that activation of lexical competitors eliminates orattenuates priming. These results suggested that the advantage of the sandwich priming
paradigm over the conventional one could also be obtained by a preprime presentation of asimilar to the target word, rather than the target itself and thus could not be attributed to theelimination of lexical competition effects.

General Discussion
The results from the present study showed that the masked form priming effect was increased
not only after a brief preprime presentation of the target itself, but also after a presentation of aword orthographically related to the target. These results contradicted the predictions of theSpatial Coding Model (Davis, 2010), which predicted an increase of the priming effect only after
a presentation of the target and an inhibitory influence of the presentation of a related word. In
the interactive activation framework, the activation of such closely related candidates leads toinhibition of the target word and they are therefore considered to be target’s competitors. Our
study replicated the results of Lupker and Davis (2009) that the presentation of the target before
the prime, as in the sandwich priming paradigm, produced priming effects that were not34

present when the original masked priming was employed. Crucially, however, we extended
their findings and demonstrated that this effect could also be achieved with a preprime
presentation of a competitor word. As a presentation of a competitor should increase lexicalcompetition, the results presented here thus contradict Lupker and Davis’s interpretation thatthe sandwich priming procedure enchances priming by attentuating lexical competition
processes. More specifically, the present results provided evidence that the brief presentation of
the target as a preprime was not linked to mechanisms of suppression of targets’ competitors.
These findings suggested that the sandwich priming methodology could not be considered as amethod overcoming the limitations of the conventional masked priming paradigm byeliminating lexical competition effects.
In the present study, we addressed the question of why the primes that failed to produce
facilitation effects with the conventional masked priming paradigm did so with the sandwich
priming. As we considered the evidence, provided by Lupker and Davis (2009) to beinconclusive for determining the nature of the sandwich priming effects, we tested their claimthat a preprime presentation affected lexical competition processes. We followed the interactive
activation and competition framework and aimed to provide more evidence by keeping lexicalcompetition present. What is more, we aimed to enhance it. We did so by manipulating what
and whether anything was presented before the prime. If the presentation of the target would
activate the target’s lexical representation and by doing that this advantage will lead to theelimination of lexical competition effects, then it should follow from that, that a presentation ofa target’s competitor before the prime would preactivate the target’s competitor lexical
representation, which would keep and even augment lexical competition effects. The claim of35

Lupker and Davis was that moderately related primes could produce facilitation if lexicalcompetition effects were filtered out. We explored whether moderately related primes could
also produce priming with preprimes that clearly could not filter out lexical competition (andindeed should have the opposite effect).
In three different lexical decision experiments, we explored the priming effects of related primes
by comparing them to an unrelated primes conditions. We did that comparison with threedifferent procedures. We used the conventional masked priming procedure in which we
presented only one brief prime, that was immediately followed by a target. We also used theprocedure, suggested by Lupker and Davis (2009), in which we inserted the target’s briefpresentation before the prime. In the third procedure, we inserted a target’s competitor before
the presentation of the prime. We compared the obtained empirical results with the predictionsof the Spatial Coding Model (Davis, 2010) that were specific to the used stimulus materials.
In our first experiment, we used the original Lupker and Davis (2009, Experiment 2) stimuli andchose the closest possible competitor for each target. The results showed that the priming effects
in the competitor preprime conditions for the one and two-letter different primes wasnumerically larger, but not significantly different from the ones that were obtained when there
was no preprime (conventional masked priming). These results did not accord with theprediction of the model of an attenuation of the priming effect in the competitor preprime
condition, relative to the no preprime condition. Consistent with the model’s predictions,however, and with the reported results by Lupker and Davis, a form priming boost was
replicated in the identity preprime (original sandwich priming) condition. After such a target

36

preprime presentation, the priming effect in the one-letter different prime condition reached 59
ms. This effect was statistically different from the no preprime condition, but not from thecompetitor condition, suggesting a tendency of the competitor preprime towards producing aform priming boost. With an identity preprime, a significant facilitation effect was observed
when the related primes were up to three-letter different from the target, thus differing from thecompetitor and the no preprime conditions.
In Experiment 2, we chose different targets that have orthographic neighbors and constructed
stronger competitors for them. We chose high frequency words that differ by only one letterfrom the target. We expected that such a manipulation should afford strong inhibitory effects if
indeed lexical competition was affecting priming results. In this experiment, all primes were
one-letter different from the target as well as one-letter different from the competitor preprimes.
All three preprime conditions produced significant facilitation. No trace of inhibition was
introduced by the high-frequency target neighbors. These results stood in sharp contrast with
the Spatial Coding Model’s (Davis, 2010) prediction of a strong inhibitory priming effect in thecompetitor preprime condition. The model’s prediction suggested that in an interactiveactivation framework, the selected items were highly effective in triggering lexical competition
processes in the context of the shared-neighbor primes and the lower frequency neighbortargets. Despite that, however, the priming effect in the competitor preprime condition inExperiment 2 remained in the opposite direction and did not differ significantly from thepriming effect in the identity preprime condition.

37

With competitor preprime manipulation left aside, the results from the second experiment also
showed that, although numerically 11 ms bigger, the 36 ms priming effect in the identity
condition was also not statistically different from the one in the conventional masked priming
condition. Unlike the sandwich priming boost in the one-letter different prime condition inExperiment 1, such a robust boost was not observed with the stimuli in Experiment 2. The
priming effect was increased with 35 ms relative to the no preprime condition in Experiment 1
and with only 11 ms in Experiment 2. Apart from being one letter shorter, the targets inExperiment 2 differed from those in Experiment 1 by having a high frequency neighbor. In
addition, related primes were constructed to be neighbors of both the target and the target’s
word neighbor. Previous studies have demonstrated that the size of the priming effect isreduced when target neighbor nonword primes and targets share a word neighbor (Van
Heuven, Dijkstra, Grainger, & Schriefers, 2001). These findings have been interpreted in just thiskind of the lexical competition framework: The explanation has been that when the prime isrelated to both the targer and a competitor, this competitor becomes highly active and therefore
influences the target negatively through the lateral inhibition mechanism in the related
condition. If shared neighbors reduce the size of the priming effect even after the sandwich
priming manipulation, then lexical competition, stated as a cause for decreased priming effects,
is not eliminated by the preprime presentation of the target. The fact that the size of the
sandwich priming boost was greater with targets that had no close competitors (Experiment 1)
than with targets that had high frequency neighbors and were primed by shared-neighborprimes (Experiment 2) is consistent with the interpretation that sandwich priming does notaddress counteractive lexical competition effects. However, further investigation is needed38before drawing strong conclusions regarding the sandwich priming boost dependency oneffects such as shared neighborhood, frequency and neighborhood size relationships between
targets and competitors, and possibly target length.
Some evidence that the sandwich priming boost might be dependent on word length in ashared neighbor priming context comes from the obtained robust priming effect in theconventional masked priming condition in Experiment 2. This condition served as a baseline for
evaluating the sandwich priming boost and was not significantly different from theidentitypreprime condition. One apparent difference between the current study and a previous
study, that had demonstrated that shared neighbor primes were not effective (Van Heuven,
Dijkstra, Grainger, & Schriefers, 2001), was the length of the stimuli. The stimuli in Experiment
2 were six-letters long, while the items in Van Heuven et al. (2001) were four-letters long.
In Experiment 3, we sought to extend the findings with the three preprime manipulations andconstructed the related prime condition by transposing all adjacent letters in the targets.
Previous studies have shown that such primes do not differ from an unrelated condition when
the original masked priming is used (Guerrera & Forster, 2008; Lupker & Davis, 2009). Our
results were in accordance with those studies as we failed to establish a significant priming
effect when there was no preprime. We also managed to replicate the significant difference
between the related condition and the unrelated condition when the target was presented as apreprime that was found by Lupker and Davis (2009, Experiment 1). More important, though,we found that higher-frequency neighbors of the target enabled the same facilitation effect as
the target words themselves (in fact, even numerically bigger) when they were presented as39

preprimes. These results were again not in accordance with the Spatial Coding Model’s (Davis,
2010) predictions.
These findings imply that the competitor preprimes did not inhibit the targets’ recognition andcould not be linked to lexical competition processes. On the contrary, the results from
Experiments 2 and 3, in which the competitors highly resembled the targets and differed byonly one letter from them, the cases in which they should produce most inhibition, they
produced as much facilitation as the target preprimes did.
Like Lupker and Davis (2009), we found that the brief presentation of the target before theprimes boosted masked form priming facilitation effects and even produced facilitatory priming
in cases in which the traditional masked priming procedure could not. Our results were not
however consistent with an interpretation that the obtained facilitatory orthographic priming
effects were evidence that prime sandwiching was a manipulation that operated by reducing
lexical competition effects. Considering the evidence presented here, one should not view adual-prime paradigm, such as the sandwich priming paradigm, as a superior to theconventional masked-priming paradigm by virtue of reduction of competition. Such aninterpretation is ruled out by our demonstration that the orthographic effects were not reversedand followed the same sandwich pattern when orthographic neighbors of the targets were
presented as a preprime.
It appeared from the data presented here that the priming effect was boosted when both the
preprimes and primes reached a high degree of similarity with the targets. In Experiment 1,
when the competitor preprimes were more often more than one-letter different from the target,40

the facilitation in the competitor preprime condition was evident only when the related primes
were no more than two-letters different. Thus, the results in this preprime condition matchedthose in the no preprime condition. In Experiment 3, however, when the competitor preprimes
differed by only one-letter from the target, the priming effect produced by transposed-all letter
primes reached significance and was highly boosted by the presence of a preprime, regardlessof whether the preprime was the competitor word or the target. We could thus infer that theorthographic priming effect produced in a sandwich priming paradigm was not a function of
the similarity between the prime and the target, with lexical competition being filtered out, butrather of the joint similarity of the two primes with the target.
Such an interpretation is consistent with evidence provided by Forster (2009, 2013) that masked
form primes did not produce significant priming effects when they were followed by anotherunrelated prime, rather than directly by the target. In his studies, Forster used a procedure that
resembled the sandwich priming paradigm as it also included an additional processing event
which was inserted in the conventional mask-prime-target sequence. As he explored the limitsof obtaining a priming effect, his study contained different manipulations than those in thepresent study. Such differences include: order of presentation of the two primes, prime visibility(masked, unmasked) and prime type levels. An additional unrelated preprime served as acontrol for establishing the effect of an identity preprime and a one-letter different nonword
form prime. When both primes were masked (both presented for 50 ms), an identity preprime
produced a significant facilitation effect relative to the control when followed by an unrelated
prime, but form prime did not. Forster concluded that identity priming operated on two levels:
meaning and form, with only the processes taking place on the level of meaning being
41

unsusceptible to the effects of the dissimilar in form unrelated “intervenor”. These results, andthe interactive nature of the sandwich priming boost observed in the present study, suggest thata masked orthographic priming effect requires a degree of consistency in the information
provided by subsequent brief perceptual events.
A possible explanation of these observations could be that the presentation of the preprime in
the present study enhanced the form priming effect by providing additional perceptual
evidence that was consistent with the characteristics of the target. The priming effect is afunction of the total amount of information consistent with the target that could be processed insuch conditions from both the prime and preprime. It follows from the preprime and prime
interaction that the accumulated evidence towards the target from the preprime alone isinsufficient when there are two sequential priming visual events and an additional supporting
evidence from the prime is needed to produce the facilitation effect. When the prime is related
to the target (and the preprime), the total amount of inconsistent information is much less (interms of wrong letter identities, and letter positions or both) and possibly the probability that itis detected is much lower in comparison to the unrelated prime condition. Thus, the difference
between the related and unrelated prime conditions becomes significant. Interpretations ofpriming effects in terms of accumulating perceptual evidence from successive percetual events
are also made by proponents of the Bayesian Reader framework (Norris & Kinoshita, 2008).
Another interpretation of the results, and particularly the consistent sandwich priming boost
with moderaly related primes, could be described in the framework of the interactive-activation
model (McClelland & Rumelhart, 1981) with mechanisms different from lexical competition. As

42the name suggests, this account models the process of word recognition by the means ofaccumulation of activation of individual lexical units (word nodes), and higher levels ofactivation are associated with recognition. Facilitatory priming is therefore observed when thetarget word’s node is more active at related prime offset than at control prime offset.
A word node’s activation starts from a resting level, a negative number that is specific for eachword node and is a function of the word’s frequency, but is typically higher than the minimum(floor) activation associated with all nodes. When an input is presented that is sufficiently
consistent with the node, the node’s activity increases, while with a net inconsistent input theactivity decreases. Therefore, the presentation of an unrelated prime will decrease the target’s
activation below its resting level, eventually pushing it towards the floor.
A prime, insufficiently consistent with the target, such as a transposed-all prime, could produce
a similar effect. Although more slowly than with an unrelated prime presentaiton, the target’s
activation will also decrease due to a transposed-all prime and could reach the floor level by thetime of the prime’s offset. In this scenario, at the time of the target’s onset, the activitation of thetarget node will be at the same starting point, the floor level, in both the unrelated prime andthe related transposed-all prime conditions. Therefore, in both conditions, the target node willneed the same amount of time to raise its activity to the recognition threshold. Since there will
be no difference between the two priming conditions, a priming effect, measured by thatdifference, would not be observed.
In sandwich priming scenarios, the first event is the preprime that is consistent with the target,
rather than the prime that is not. Therefore, the target’s activation will first increase above the43resting level, rather than decrease to the floor level (as in the no preprime condition). This
increase could be achieved with both a target preprime and a one-letter-different from the target
preprime (i.e., the competitor preprime condition). When the prime is presented as a second
event, the level of the target’s activation is sufficiently high to remain above the floor level until
the offset of the inconsistent prime, at least in the transposed-all prime condition. In thiscondition, the activity decreases at a slower rate than the control due to this related prime’s
moderate similarity to the target. As the activity of the target will not drop to the floor level, orat least not in both priming conditions, it will be different for the two conditions at the time of
the target’s onset. The crucial difference between the conventional priming and the sandwich
priming, therefore, is that a floor effect is observed in the former, while in the latter it is not. In
conventional priming, at the time of the target’s onset, the activation of the target node is at thesame (floor) level in both priming conditions, while in sandwich priming, it is higher in therelated transposed-all prime condition than in the unrelated one, allowing for a priming effectto occur.
An interpretation as the one in the interactive activation framework, however, considers allfeatures of the stimuli and assumes that all information is processed in both the conventional
masked priming and the sandwich masked priming conditions. Due to the additional visual
event and the further processing time, however, the mechanisms involved might differ between
the two masked priming paradigms and a straight comparison between the orthographic
priming effects produced by both might not be absolutely informative, until more evidence isgathered about the perceptual processes that take place when two primes are briefly displayed.
Interesting outstanding questions include the extent to which the preprime information is44

processed, and in particular, when such information is inconsistent with the other two visual
events (prime and target). Such information was, for example, the inconsistent one different
letter in the competitor preprime in Experiment 3. Although the sandwich priming paradigm
may not be superior to the original masked priming paradigm for the reasons stated by Lupker
and Davis (2009), it may nevertheless be informative in the exploration of bottom up processes,
early processing stages in visual recognition and capacity limitations of the processing system.
A similar technique has already been employed for investigation of capacity limitations inseveral studies (Forster, 2009, 2013). A task that could be used as an alternative to theconventional masked-primed lexical decision for measuring orthographic similarity is the samedifferent task, which has been proposed as less susceptible to lexical effects and more sensitivefor detecting small differences in priming effects (e.g. Kinoshita & Norris, 2009; Norris,
Kinoshita, & van Casteren, 2010).
In conclusion, the present study provided evidence that the enhancement of the form priming
effect produced in the sandwich priming paradigm in comparison to the conventional masked
priming paradigm could not be attributed to the elimination of lexical competition processes.
Rather, the results from the present study suggest that this effect have a different locus, such as
bottom-up processes that operate on a prelexical level. The results from the present study thus
not only question the mechanisms underlying the sandwich priming procedure, but they also
provide more information about the nature and the boundaries of orthographic processing.

45

References

Adelman, J. S. (2011). Letters and Time in Retinotopic Space. Psychological Review, 118,
570–582.
Adelman, J. S., Johnson, R. L., McCormick, S. F., McKague, M., Kinoshita, S., Bowers, J.
S., ... & Davis, C. J.. (2014). A behavioral database for masked form priming. Behavior
Research Methods, 46, 1052-1067.
Andrews, S., & Lo, S. (2012). Not all skilled readers have cracked the code: Individual
differences in masked form priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 38, 152–163.
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database (onCD-ROM). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for
confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of memory and language, 68,
255-278.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects
Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1-48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
Benjamini, Y., & Yekutieli, D. (2001). The control of the false discovery rate in multiple
testing under dependency. Annals of statistics, 1165-1188.

46

Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J., & Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal
lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 535–555). Hillsdale,
NJ:Erlbaum.
Davis, C. J. (1999). The self-organizing lexical acquisition and recognition (SOLAR)
model of visual word recognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Davis, C. J. (2003). Factors underlying masked priming effects in competitive networkmodels of visual word recognition. In S. Kinoshita & S. J. Lupker (Eds.), Masked
priming: The state of the art (pp. 121–170). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
Davis, C. J. (2005). N-Watch: A program for deriving neighbourhood size and otherpsycholinguistic statistics. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 65–70.
Davis, C. J. (2010). The spatial coding model of visual word identification. Psychologicalreview, 117, 713.
Davis, C. J., & Lupker, S. J. (2006). Masked inhibitory priming in English: Evidence forlexical inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 32, 668–687.
De Rosario-Martinez, H. (2013). Phia: post-hoc interaction analysis. R package version 0.13.

47

Forster, K. I. (2009). The intervenor effect in masked priming: How does masked
priming survive across an intervening word? Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 3649.
Forster, K. I. (2013). How many words can we read at once? More intervenor effects inmasked priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 563-573.
Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexicalaccess. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 680–
698.
Forster, K. I., Davis, C., Schoknecht, C., & Carter, R. (1987). Masked priming withgraphemically related forms: Repetition or partial activation? Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 39, 211-251.
Fox, J., & Weisberg., S. (2011). An R Companion to Applied Regression, Second Edition.
Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. URL:
http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion
Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W. (2003). Modeling letter position coding in printed word
perception. In P. Bonin (Ed.), The mental lexicon (pp. 1–24). New York: Nova Science.
Guerrera, C., & Forster, K. (2008). Masked form priming with extreme transposition.
Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 117-142.

48

Kinoshita, S., & Norris, D. (2009). Transposed-letter priming of prelexical orthographic
representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
35, 1.
Ktori, M., Grainger, J., Dufau, S., & Holcomb, P. J. (2012). The “electrophysiologicalsandwich”: A method for amplifying ERP priming effects. Psychophysiology, 49, 11141124.
Ktori, M., Kingma, B., Hannagan, T., Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (2014). On the timecourse of adjacent and non-adjacent transposed-letter priming. Journal of Cognitive
Psychology, 26, 491-505.
Lupker, S. J., & Davis, C. J. (2009). Sandwich priming: A method for overcoming thelimitations of masked priming by reducing lexical competitor effects. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 618–639.
Lupker, S. J., Perea, M., & Davis, C. J. (2008). Transposed-letter effects: Consonants,
vowels and letter frequency. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 93-116.
Lupker, S. J., Zhang, Y. J., Perry, J. R., & Davis, C. J. (2015). Superset versus substitutionletter priming: An evaluation of open-bigram models. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 138.
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context
effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic ﬁndings. Psychological Review,
88, 375–407.
49

Norris, D., & Kinoshita, S. (2008). Perception as evidence accumulation and Bayesianinference: Insights from masked priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
137, 434-455.
Norris, D., & Kinoshita, S. (2012). Reading through a noisy channel: Why there’s
nothing special about the perception of orthography. Psychological Review, 119, 517–
545.
Norris, D., Kinoshita, S., & van Casteren, M. (2010). A stimulus sampling theory of letter
identity and order. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 254-271.
Perea, M., & Lupker, S. J. (2003). Transposed-letter confusability effects in masked form
priming. In S. Kinoshita & S. J. Lupker (Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp.
97–120). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Perea, M., & Lupker, S. J. (2004). Can CANISO activate CASINO? Transposed-letter
similarity effects with nonadjacent letter positions. Journal of memory and language, 51,
231-246.
R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundationfor Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
Rubenstein, H., Garﬁeld, L., & Millikan, J. A. (1970). Homographic entries in the internal
lexicon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 487–494.

50

Schoonbaert, S., & Grainger, J. (2004). Letter position coding in printed word
perception: Effects of repeated and transposed letters. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 19, 333–367.
Segui, J., & Grainger, J. (1990). Priming word recognition with orthographic neighbors:
Effects of relative prime-target frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 16, 65.
Van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & Schriefers, H. (2001). Sharedneighborhood effects in masked orthographic priming. Psychonomic Bulletin &Review, 8, 96–101.
Van Heuven, W. J., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2014). SUBTLEX-UK: A
new and improved word frequency database for British English. The Quarterly Journalof Experimental Psychology, 67, 1176-1190.
Whitney, C. (2001). How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The
SERIOL model and selective literature review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 221243.

51

Table 1
Mean Response Times (ms) and Error Rates (%) by Condition for Word Trials in Experiment 1
Prime
Preprime(Different letters)
1

2

3

4

5

7

Identity

536 (3)554 (1)561 (3)593 (4)593 (6)595 (6)Competitor

547 (3)567 (3)582 (4)592 (5)592 (5)589 (5)None

555 (3)562 (2)565 (2)577 (3)583 (4)579 (2)52

Table 2
Mean Response Times (ms) and Error Rates (%) by Condition for Nonword Trials in Experiment 1
Prime
Preprime(Different letters)
1

2

3

4

5

7

Identity

642 (2)637 (6)642 (6)648 (4)630 (2)644 (7)Competitor

652 (6)648 (4)650 (5)638 (5)648 (5)653 (3)None

644 (3)659 (7)662 (5)652 (5)651 (6)661 (2)53

Table 3
Mean Response Times (ms) and Error Rates (%) by Condition for Word Trials in Experiment 2 andResponse Times (cycles) by Condition in Simulation of Experiment 2
Preprime
IdentityCompetitor

None

Prime
One-letter different
Unrelated
Priming

Experiment

Simulation

Experiment

Simulation

Experiment

Simulation

623 (9)659 (14)36 (5)

76113
37

634 (10)667 (13)33 (3)

157
115
-42

631 (7)656 (10)25 (3)

111
114
3

54

Table 4
Mean Response Times (ms) and Error Rates (%) by Condition for Nonword Trials in Experiment 2
Preprime
Prime
One-letter different
Unrelated
Priming

Identity
696 (10)701 (8)5 (-2)

Competitor
701 (10)708 (9)7 (-1)

55

None
707(8)
718 (9)11(1)Table 5
Mean Response Times (ms) and Error Rates (%) by Condition for Word Trials in Experiment 3 andResponse Times (cycles) by Condition in Simulation of Experiment 3
Preprime
IdentityCompetitor

None

Prime
Transposed-all
Unrelated
Priming

Experiment

Simulation

Experiment

Simulation

Experiment

Simulation

614 (10)640 (14)26 (4)

99113
14

617 (9)657 (13)40 (4)

116
115-1630 (9)633 (12)
3 (3)

113
114
1

56

Table 6
Mean Response Times (ms) and Error Rates (%) by Condition for Nonword Trials in Experiment 3
Preprime
Prime
Transposed-all
Unrelated
Priming

Identity
698 (13)711 (12)13 (-1)Competitor
701 (11)708 (11)
7 (0)

57

None
701(10)708 (11)7(1)Figure 1. Priming effect (relative to the relevant all-letter-different control) in Experiment 1 (ms;left) and simulation of Experiment 1 (cycles; right), as a function of preprime type and prime
type for word trials.

58

Figure 2. Words activity over time in the trial CARAMEL-cvreful-CAREFUL from thesimulation of Experiment 1.

59

Appendix A
Stimuli in Experiment 1
1-LD

2-LD

3-LD

4-LD

axticleaxbicleaxbvcleaxbvwlecsbinetcslinetcslwnetcvreful

cvmeful

5-LD

7-LD

TargetCompetitor

axbvwhenxbvwhm

ARTICLEARTISTE

cslwvetcslwvxt

rslwvxk

CABINETCABARET

cvmsful

cvmsdul

cvmsdxl

wvmsdxk

CAREFULCARAMEL

Word Trials

czntralczwtralczwkralczwkmalczwkmslvzwkmsb

CENTRALCONTROL

cdapter

cdnpter

cdnqter

cdnqfer

cdnqfmrwdnqfmz

CHAPTERCHARTER

cbimatecbwmatecbwvatecbwvstecbwvsfenbwvsfn

CLIMATECOINAGE

cvstumecvxtumecvxkumecvxknmecvxknze

wvxknzw

COSTUME

CONSUMEcvunter

cvxnter

cvxmter

cvxmker

cvxmkzrsvxmkzs

COUNTER

CLUSTERcnuragecnwragecnwvagecnwvmgecnwvmqexnwvmqs

COURAGECOINAGEdslight

dsfight

dsfxght

dsfxyht

dsfxybt

ksfxybk

DELIGHTDEFIANT

dvstroy

dvctroy

dvckroy

dvckmoy

dvckmxy

fvckmxp

DESTROYDESTINY

dmsplay

dmvplay

dmvglay

dmvgfay

dmvgfxy

hmvgfxj

DISPLAYDISOBEY

fzctory

fzwtory

fzwdory

fzwdsry

fzwdsny

lzwdsnj

FACTORY

FANTASY

fwcultyfwxultyfwxsltyfwxshtyfwxshkybwxshkp

FACULTY

FALSITY

fmshionfmvhionfmvkionfmvkconfmvkcxn

bmvkcxw

FASHION

FACTIONfwreignfwzeignfwzvignfwzvmgnfwzvmqndwzvmqc

FOREIGNFOREMANfxrgive

fxsgive

fxspivefxspmvefxspmce

txspmcw

FORGIVEFORGAVE

fnrmulafnvmulafnvwulafnvwzlafnvwzdaknvwzds

FORMULAFERRULE

fsrtunefsmtunefsmdunefsmdcnefsmdcwehsmdcwv

FORTUNEFORGONE

fxneralfxveralfxvzralfxvzsalfxvzsclkxvzsct

FUNERAL

FEDERALhzlidayhztidayhztrdayhztrkayhztrkny

bztrknp

HOLIDAYHALFWAY

hzstilehzntilehznkilehznkvlehznkvbedznkvbw

HOSTILEHOSTAGEhvsbandhvxbandhvxkandhvxkwndhvxkwmd

lvxkwml

HUSBANDHOLLAND

icprove

icjrove

icjwove

icjwxve

icjwxze

scjwxzs

IMPROVEIMPLORE

imcludeimzludeimztudeimztsdeimztshewmztshw

INCLUDEINCLINEjvurney

jvxrney

jvxzney

jvxzmey

jvxzmsy

pvxzmsgJOURNEYJOINERY

jnsticejnrticejnrdice

jnrdvce

jnrdvxe

gnrdvxw

JUSTICEJASMINE

kvngdom

kvrgdom

kvrpdomkvrphomkvrphxm

tvrphxw

KINGDOM

GINGHAM

krtchenkrdchenkrdxhenkrdxlenkrdxlsn

frdxlsw

KITCHENKINSMEN

mvchinemvshinemvsdinemvsdxnemvsdxrewvsdxrw

MACHINE

MACHETE

mwdicalmwticalmwtvcalmwtvxalmwtvxnl

rwtvxnf

MEDICALMAGICAL

mxsicalmxvicalmxvncalmxvnzalmxvnzwl

rxvnzwk

MUSICALMARITAL

nxtwork

nxhwork

nxhzorknxhzsrknxhzsvkmxhzsvf

NETWORKNEWBORN

pvyment

pvqment

pvqrent

pvqrwnt

pvqrwzt

gvqrwzf

PAYMENTPATIENT

pvcturepvnturepvnkurepvnkwrepvnkwzeqvnkwzs

PICTUREPASTURE

phastic

phwstic

phwntic

phwndic

phwndvc

yhwndvr

PLASTICPHALLICpxvertypxwertypxwzrtypxwzntypxwznhyqxwznhg

POVERTY

PUBERTY60

pwoduce

pwxduce

pwxlucepwxlscepwxlsvejwxlsvn

PRODUCEPROCURE

pxoduct

pxvduct

pxvkuct

pxvkwct

pxvkwzt

qxvkwzl

PRODUCT

PREDICT

pvoject

pvnject

pvnqect

pvnqsct

pvnqsmtgvnqsmf

PROJECTPROTECT

pxomisepxwmisepxwvisepxwvcsepxwvcze

jxwvczn

PROMISEPREMISE

pvoteinpvmteinpvmfeinpvmfsinpvmfszn

qvmfszc

PROTEINPROTEANpsovidepsnvidepsnmidepsnmzdepsnmzteysnmztx

PROVIDEPRESIDEqvality

qvslity

qvsfity

qvsfmty

qvsfmky

gvsfmkjQUALITYQUALIFY

rcspondrcwpondrcwjondrcwjzndrcwjzxdvcwjzxhRESPONDRESOUND

rxutinerxwtinerxwdinerxwdznerxwdzsevxwdzsm

ROUTINERAGTIMEscrvant

scmvant

scmzant

scmzwnt

scmzwct

xcmzwcd

SERVANTSERPENT

sxldier

sxtdiersxtkier

sxtkver

sxtkvwr

nxtkvwc

SOLDIERSILLIERsdomachsdzmachsdzrachsdzrwchsdzrwnhvdzrwnk

STOMACHSPINACH

Shorageshwrageshwcageshwcvgeshwcvyexhwcvyn

STORAGESALVAGE

swrface

swmfaceswmhaceswmhxceswmhxze

nwmhxzn

SURFACESUFFICEtciumphtcvumphtcvsmphtcvswphtcvswyhbcvswyl

TRIUMPHTALLISHtzoubletzvubletzvxbletzvxfletzvxfhedzvxfhs

TROUBLETREMBLE

tjpicaltjqicaltjqvcaltjqvraltjqvrsl

hjqvrsd

TYPICALTOPICALuviform

uvwform

uvwhorm

uvwhxrm

uvwhxsm

cvwhxsz

UNIFORMUNICORN

ujright

ujcight

ujcvght

ujcvyht

ujcvyftxjcvyfk

UPRIGHTUPTIGHTvsrietyvszietyvszmetyvszmwtyvszmwky

nszmwkg

VARIETYVARSITY

vzrsionvzcsionvzcmionvzcmwonvzcmwznxzcmwzx

VERSION

VENISON

vwctory

vwstory

vwskory

vwskxry

vwskxny

mwskxnj

VICTORY

VICEROY

wvrship

wvnship

wvnchip

wvnclip

wvnclzp

xvnclzq

WORSHIPWARSHIP

Nonword Trials
twobidetwmbidetwmhidetwmhzdetwmhzfelwmhzfx

TROBIDETRYBIDEvsdilarvshilarvshzlarvshztarvshztmrnshztmx

VIDILAR

VIDIJARlstchenlsdchenlsdwhenlsdwfenlsdwfxn

ksdwfxr

LETCHEN

LETXHENdzpimaldzyimaldzynmaldzynxaldzynxsl

hzynxsf

DAPIMALDJPIMAL

svralgesvnalgesvnzlgesvnzhgesvnzhjewvnzhjm

SCRALGESCRAKGE

dwrplexdwmplexdwmjlexdwmjbexdwmjbcx

fwmjbcn

DORPLEXDOKPLEXdsfturedskturedskburedskbwredskbwnehskbwnz

DIFTUREDIFTULE

wzrbacewzvbacewzvhacewzvhncewzvhnmexzvhnmx

WURBACEWURBAME

onelageonclage

oncfage

oncfwge

oncfwjemncfwjz

OVELAGEOVELAGC

psurcil

pszrcil

pszmcil

pszmwil

pszmwvl

gszmwvd

POURCIL

POURGILbslercebsdercebsdwrcebsdwxcebsdwxnehsdwxnv

BILERCE

BILEWCEsbuvent

sbrvent

sbrxent

sbrxznt

sbrxzmt

wbrxzmk

SLUVENTSLUKENTfwrbosefwmbosefwmhosefwmhcsefwmhcvelwmhcvx

FURBOSE

FUQBOSEbvfercebvkerce

bvkxrcebvkxzcebvkxznedvkxzns

BEFERCE

BEFEWCE

kslefitksbefit

ksbxfit

ksbxhit

ksbxhrtdsbxhrdKELEFIT

KELEXITasprainasyrainasyzainasyzwinasyzwmncsyzwmc

AXPRAIN

AXPCAIN

txpulartxjulartxjmlartxjmhartxjmhwr

fxjmhws

TEPULARTQPULARsboromysbxromysbxvomysbxvnmysbxvncy

wbxvncp

STOROMYSTOPOMYdxanitydxvnity

dxvsity

dxvswty

dxvswhy

fxvswhg

DEANITY

DEANFTY

61

frlance

frtance

frtvnce

frtvsce

frtvswedrtvswx

FOLANCEFOLGNCE

bxditalbxfitalbxfstalbxfshalbxfshzl

kxfshzk

BEDITAL

BEDIFAL

swnfact

swzfact

swzhact

swzhmct

swzhmvt

xwzhmvb

SONFACTSJNFACTmzveropmzweropmzwsropmzwscopmzwscxp

nzwscxy

MEVEROP

MEVEROK

dsrfelt

dszfelt

dszkelt

dszkclt

dszkcbt

hszkcbh

DERFELT

DERFEVTavagour

avcgour

avcqour

avcqzur

avcqzxr

svcqzxw

AMAGOURABAGOURbslefombshefombshvfombshvtombshvtwmdshvtwc

BOLEFOM

DOLEFOM

cmlpetecmfpetecmfqetecmfqstecmfqshewmfqshx

CALPETECAHPETE

cfonitycfrnity

cfrwitycfrwstycfrwsky

xfrwskp

CHONITY

CVONITY

cvdselt

cvkselt

cvkzelt

cvkzrlt

cvkzrht

wvkzrhb

CODSELTCWDSELTetkeroretderoretdwroretdwxoretdwxmrstdwxmv

ELKEROR

EFKEROR

fmlpionfmdpionfmdqionfmdqvonfmdqvrnhmdqvrw

FILPIONFILPIHN

hvlbony

hvfbony

hvftony

hvftrny

hvftrzy

dvftrzj

HALBONYHALBVNYiwbelseiwtelseiwtzlseiwtzdseiwtzdxe

cwtzdxn

IMBELSEIMBETSElmdancelmfance

lmfwnce

lmfwrce

lmfwrxe

hmfwrxs

LIDANCE

LTDANCE

mvfster

mvdster

mvdcter

mvdcker

mvdckzr

wvdckzn

MAFSTERMLFSTER

nxrvralnxzvralnxzmralnxzmsalnxzmsclwxzmscf

NERVRALNERVRQL

pxdefic

pxkefic

pxkwfic

pxkwlic

pxkwlrc

jxkwlrs

PADEFICPYDEFIC

pzvultypzcultypzcxltypzcxbtypzcxbfyjzcxbfj

PEVULTYPEVUDTY

pselacy

pswlacy

pswfacy

pswfzcy

pswfzvy

gswfzvj

PRELACYPFELACY

rcdivalrchivalrchwvalrchwnalrchwnsl

xchwnsb

REDIVAL

REDIVWL

syorvetsywrvetsywzvetsywzcetsywzcnt

xywzcnh

SPORVETSPORVGTsnvitorsncitorsncxtorsncxdorsncxdmrwncxdmz

SEVITORSEVWTOR

tcamialtcwmialtcwsialtcwszaltcwszvl

kcwszvb

TRAMIALTRABIAL

wkasber

wkmsber

wkmvber

wkmvter

wkmvtnr

ckmvtnc

WHASBER

WHASBQR

egiladeegmladeegmfadeegmfwdeegmfwtexgmfwtn

EPILADEEPIGADEsyueanesyweanesywranesywrmnesywrmve

xywrmvz

SQUEANE

SQBEANEtnshuretnxhuretnxburetnxbmretnxbmce

fnxbmcw

TOSHURETOSDURE

oxlbardoxkbardoxkhardoxkhwrdoxkhwvd

nxkhwvt

OULBARDOULBXRD

tlaggertlmggertlmqger

tlmqjer

tlmqjwr

klmqjwv

THAGGER

THASGER

sralvensrxlvensrxtvensrxtzensrxtzcn

mrxtzcm

SWALVENSWAQVEN

mnbicalmnficalmnfscalmnfsvalmnfsvxl

wnfsvxt

MABICAL

MABICFL

gvemmargvsmmargvswmargvswcargvswcxr

qvswcxn

GREMMAR

GNEMMARqxandelqxcndelqxcvdelqxcvkelqxcvkzl

yxcvkzb

QUANDELQUAFDEL

mwrfory

mwcforymwctorymwctzrymwctzsyxwctzsq

MERFORYMERFORDovatelf

ovctelf

ovchelf

ovchxlf

ovchxdf

mvchxdb

ONATELF

OGATELF

cwngarm

cwxgarm

cwxparmcwxpsrmcwxpszmvwxpszv

CONGARM

COQGARM

crndialcrvdialcrvhialcrvhsalcrvhszl

xrvhszb

CONDIAL

CONDIXL

grbadic

grladic

grlvdic

grlvkic

grlvkwc

prlvkwn

GEBADICGEBADIW

cxnvent

cxsvent

cxswent

cxswznt

cxswzmtrxswzmk

CANVENTCGNVENT

dvflaredvhlaredvhtaredvhtnredvhtnwe

kvhtnwc

DEFLAREDMFLARE(Appendixes continue)

62

Appendix B
Stimuli in Experiment 2
Relatedprime
competitor

Unrelated
prime
competitor

Relatedprime
identity

Unrelated Related
prime
prime
identitynoWord Trials

aqoundvfxwyiapoundclqezw

Unrelatedprime
noTargetCompetitor

azoundwlyvxeABOUNDAROUNDaczingwrpqljacqingxsmuobacringqjovwr

ACHING

ACTING

arjfulponqdharwfulipbowgarifulcjzkgw

ARTFULARMFULlanishwoledzdanishrkmedouanishjpmowrBANISHVANISHbfardstyhzqlbgardsjzylmcbhardslkizwyBEARDS

BOARDS

ieckongtylivdeckonsjdthyweckontispaw

BECKONRECKONbkeachkzdmgnbveachkiufosbfeachvjgmwqBLEACH

BREACH

bridfeuxcnowbridaecmqzyjbridfeasoxkv

BRIDLEBRIDGEaruisezymhvxaruisexhzjlpjruisedojqvkBRUISECRUISE

iandleurzkgbjandleptjvykqandleywtmzfCANDLEHANDLE

iasketuoqdgpzasketvowlhrxasketduhrwxCASKET

BASKET

chagtsiljzbvchavts

mybfdlchadtsefgqwjCHANTSCHARTSchiueslugqbkchinesrpdfnkchiwesfodaxw

CHIVESCHIMES

plawednrmgsjblawedyxzijqslawedyoikzq

CLAWEDFLAWED

cxownsdhtmxeceownsfyxizmceownsdfgixj

CLOWNSCROWNS

coajedrbfqlucoavedzujnwrcoaqedfjgsnz

COAXED

COATED

qowardunvipjgowardgufsjyeowardsgqpuv

COWARDTOWARD

xringebmtpjubringelbxzovbringeaqjpmxCRINGEFRINGE

devthslnibxrdekthsfbjorvdevthsybmfjnDEPTHS

DEATHS

ezoticbjpdyw

eyoticlwjqupeaoticuqgwlnEROTICEXOTIC

flgshytxujqzflushyrtogiv

flmshydtcpbnFLASHYFLESHYgvantslukzefgxantsbkjdoxgyantsmcojlz

GIANTSGRANTS

glopesirnwtmgloxespnywmqglotesxkcunj

GLOBESGLOVES

graptsljdimzgrapksxwcmfqgrapnskwvufj

GRAPHSGRAPES

vockeyqugrdlnockeylvnfudqockeypltgzmJOCKEY

HOCKEYeointsgckzrbkointsmfdyrklointseqdhuyJOINTS

POINTS

kemonscuwzqpgemonsrapbzxuemonspkxzvcLEMONSDEMONS

sizardnktuoqoizardnfbejqgizardyfuobeLIZARD

WIZARD

malurezwfpilmazuregvzpkjmaburegqjcflMANURE

MATURElightyjpofdxaightyqjzxcpvightypkajbw

MIGHTYEIGHTY

nivelsugqimtnpvelsbzdyrgnrvelsdqymirNAVELSNOVELS

noxiceghdjaknoaicefdaqhynowicegpmalxNOVICENOTICE

paicedbuyjfxpaisedwcvhftpaiwedoxsfwhPAIRED

PAINEDpbrishjzyxbvpmrishjunokv

pcrish

xjluoqPERISHPARISHplacsdbxsjtuplackdouyqthplacudqmufyw

PLACID

PLACEDplazuetszrfiplamuercksbyplatuevtbywo

PLAQUE

PLAGUE63pzrtly

gzicujpkrtlywgnecupgrtlycqhjuzPORTLYPARTLYrounceydlzgw

gouncexhwryvdouncekhrsgi

POUNCE

BOUNCEsreachvmiodlyreachsfowvnvreachlgjzwdPREACH

BREACH

quotpskgilrfquotfsdylfcrquotrsdliymrQUOTASQUOTES

vesignwzyoutqesignlmtcaw

fesignywpzloRESIGNDESIGN

sjmplecdfgbhswmplekrwdoqscmplehrxfjb

SAMPLESIMPLE

janitymjgpdqcanitymczwepganityrojkup

SANITYVANITYsxrawlzgnbhismrawlmegdiysjrawlbgdmjkSCRAWLSPRAWLshrincczdyvpshrinywfzaydshrinqpczavySHRINESHRINK

sgiver

jcfaqbsniverywpqugsuiverqzwbmdSLIVERSHIVER

spiwalcyuvzw

spihaledtmzqspifalzvwyjhSPINALSPIRALspaintwyqgabspeintbjzwacspainthuckdaSPLINTSPRINTsquear

zpgjdbsqueabyjvpgrsqueaw

nbrxgcSQUEALSQUEAKsquiktmhlzgksquiltczfjew

squimtjwmhvaSQUINTSQUIRT

smarchjidbxlsnarchoyqbkxsbarchjwdzuoSTARCHSEARCH

steafyvzhoixsteahyvpcgwlsteaoyhofblg

STEAMYSTEADYuneaidjbtwmyunwaidkvzqrmunoaidwrjvolUNSAIDUNPAIDurabletdikyruyabledjzmpfuvableqyxjikUSABLEUNABLE

gaultsedcwhjiaultskqocdgpaultsrdyiok

VAULTS

FAULTSbortexqfdpnufortexizdhawlortexakzfdpVORTEXCORTEX

wrevch

oxyqdiwreqchujibfswreichqaljyiWRETCHWRENCH

pouthspxqcwkrouthsngvxbwgouthsrwpbzlYOUTHS

MOUTHS

savernihygpqbavernubqfplsavernzlsjkyCAVERN

TAVERN

revtalsjkmqpreztalygqowzrejtalqpsivuRECTALRENTAL

soreamqwoylvsoreamjhliupsjreamzxudlhSCREAMSTREAM

xorbidthjzvnjorbidqskhcw

porbidgpzvcxFORBID

MORBID

merbalikqmouwerbalignfoduerbalofwczgHERBALVERBALaermitsojbgdfermitvjgzxw

zermitnfxoqaHERMITPERMIT

vowledypafixvowledpcrjgqcowledmujvxr

HOWLED

BOWLED

qegionsjzhpbtegionvcqshztegionsvzcbxLEGIONREGIONsuxkedtphjvzsugkedprownvsuqkedbamqvzSULKED

SUCKED

chailsbujwtychaimswvxoypchaibskvgtbdCHAINSCHAIRS

pistoukuhdxjpistouxwjgchpistoxzwqmjuPISTONPISTOL

stafleydhcoistawlehqgrfustajledwnmchSTAPLESTABLE

trisledykhgotriulexhbvcntrizlekwhdabTRIPLE

TRIFLE

raniomqhwgexrangomlfiuxzranwomtybqizRANSOMRANDOMdeqourgaxnlmdeiourlxsnfqdekouryxcbpw

DETOURDEVOUR

gailoregpwkjfailorebhypkcailorvuhekgTAILORSAILOR

mildeuuvabntmildebunyqkzmildenscgjopMILDEWMILDERoutlar

ikrxvfoutladgepcsqoutlafrxcnszOUTLAW

OUTLAYqreathouyxmlireathuldcogkreathjfivnxWREATH

BREATHconvepmldkprconvekjbadzgconveikfgaldCONVEXCONVEY64

Nonword Trials
avousewjvficalousexikyqcabousectkwhyANOUSE

AROUSE

enuinglqjrzwenmingvpqslkentingtxkfyr

ENCINGENDINGaktralgkjhwcaftralnpzyqdaitralfjnwpoARTRALASTRAL

canidehdxjtw

caniyeydlukgcaniqevmgulyCANISECANINE

pealmstqnzguuealmsfivwyguealmscpxqfhBEALMSREALMS

cuckoibpxyamcuckorvfthagcuckoihprxtw

CUCKONCUCKOO

bzeaksumniyobqeaks

nmjztqboeaksygwtqoBLEAKS

BREAKSfwibledzcasqfciblejwchtufvibleswhtnjFLIBLEFOIBLEsluikemnwopdsluioepthmoksluiwebqpgvfSLUISESLUICE

garbleyhzsunvarblefxkdyjharblewyogdjCARBLE

MARBLE

caghetfuxwgscaohetdorfbncadhetwrxqnoCAMHET

CACHET

jhatchxnlrgsehatchypzwibghatch

gmsuvnCHATCH

THATCH

chrstsopkyrlchostsqjowudchfstsnuwvrj

CHISTSCHESTS

cldtchvnezxdclvtch

ibmqjr

clvtchjxgsvr

CLATCH

CLUTCH

clohdswyjveqclovdsvbnejwclondsyhtfik

CLOLDSCLOUDS

koathezyvrgpvoatheidxwjggoatheufyzvj

COATHE

LOATHE

cqratekzysivcmrategbsdzmcmrateqwgidyCORATECURATE

zrithedobfpv

drithejgyxobbritheksjmpl

CRITHEWRITHE

mengthakxfrcpengthbmayox

iengthiuobrw

DENGTHLENGTHetxnicxplgraetwnicxsofgaetjnicdavqsrETUNICETHNIC

suandyoefmtcsfandybzxljtslandytjzoev

SPANDYSHANDYwivldskgymoxwiqldsjrcqmnwigldsogkmbhWIALDSWIELDS

zrobesnyxdlgzrobesuyikgfxrobesnzajqkWROBESPROBES

gracns

wtpeomgraonslvxpbhgraknsyzjfptGRAUNSGRAINS

fickeyoasludoickeyarwobsjickeyjwgsuq

VICKEYMICKEYwonthsqvrxdfqonthsxdqicpdonthsxyikclJONTHSMONTHS

iepotsfhcugqqepotshyawkgcepotsbxgauhLEPOTSDEPOTScazardymsglniazardtyuomknazardmbiygjFAZARDHAZARD

manogsldbfzhmanofsdcqhwzmanohshuyvxg

MANOPSMANORS

corthyjslqbccorthyueqplnvorthyzdbgqnMORTHY

WORTHYwanalsygkrzdxanalsoqpbuw

zanalsvudqkzNANALSCANALS

xevileykmfzdkevileqtsgfpaevilexztbpcNEVILEREVILE

garmthsfnqdkoarmthblnxouuarmthjukqfbPARMTHWARMTHmrdish

gjtbrumadishckjzglmrdishnxzljyMEDISH

MODISH

spayndcwjfbzspayldunltfhspayfdbfwqxzSPAYIDSPAYED

plaocezujgwfplaocentdjqfplaycemwzsnxPLARCE

PLAICE

mosqlyxcqpfzmosdlyfbqjwnmosulyawuphbMOSKLYMOSTLY

fourtsenbdmjjourtseanqwhjourtsnkvighPOURTS

COURTS

erouchevnwxgirouchsiezyawrouchnqfmztPROUCH

CROUCHihotosmwfxcaxhotosxqfiwgihotosvyzfbk

THOTOSPHOTOS

resakemqzudxresaneytoqguresavevjzfdkRESAPERESALErathlefogibkratklefydhkw

ratuledbsucv

RATPLERATTLE65muziny

awcrvpmujinycqvxzlmuxinyjvapzxMUNINY

MUTINY

scralsfydtvoscrahsqugxeyscragsdfihtmSCRACSSCRAPS

shriytolunajshriotqegbuxshribtcvagbxSHRISTSHRIFTsuiderljhxybsnideraqgvcksyiderxblnztSWIDERSPIDER

spilitjuovqfspiditwexqfmspibitqhxzwvSPINITSPIRIT

splidswaqexkspliksqehcwgspliwsdmrjxySPLIBSSPLITS

squejlwhvtdksquejlyxcpbnsquehljxmgrcSQUEELSQUEALsquicezancyxsquihextwdypsquiweflwghbSQUIVESQUIRE

staroeuiqkwnstarpedfwyuostarxeoyncfxSTARGESTARVE

steexydjvxrusteefyorwvxhsteewyfmrwdhSTEEKYSTEELYunhipejcdmqhunzipeqjgwalunmipexywkav

UNSIPEUNRIPEoyaclenpdhjuokaclezkmqndoxaclehybgmsOTACLEORACLE

iawkedtsproxxawkedbsjqmolawkedzxurqp

VAWKED

HAWKED

sertexyqnpvchertexnpdcslkertexcndfgv

JERTEXAERTEX

irendsauhyjlhrendsglqihxjrendsafhmjuWRENDS

TRENDSlnchedpjluxtvnchedmfatwxgnchedrjzxgoYNCHEDINCHED

cadegsgpjlqicadeusqglwnfcadeiszjugkw

CADEMSCADETS

recuilqbatpnrecuilnvfgbmrecmilzjtgnqRECSILRECOILthreaobqxylgthrealojxzfpthreanwkixujTHREAM

THREAD

curgidhkybnlyurgidpzneycpurgidpweyjzFURGIDTURGID

yungalmcvprbiungaltrswecpungalejbdkrHUNGALFUNGAL

dubmitajpczyaubmitvnxqcgkubmitflnqcdHUBMITSUBMIT

forpsemugfnzqorpsebljnkdworpsefkydquHORPSECORPSE

iemeanrycvouuemeanfiktguoemeanvugjbrLEMEANDEMEANsuroedyzmnbasurjedlnbkwvsurxedmwbvtlSURPED

SURGED

chaqpsijuztlchazpsigrbdv

chaxpsovnqjlCHAWPSCHAMPS

custodwevrxqcustoazljxphcustoyhazyjgCUSTONCUSTOM

czadlekuwynjcnadlewpnbyocjadlewusxjzCHADLECRADLE

primlx

gskcwzprimlztszncoprimljzktcabPRIMLEPRIMLYeannoyjchveswannoyuwdgxsdannoycqfjugRANNOYTANNOYrwgouryxcdfnrsgour

pfcblsrlgourdaxjhpREGOUR

RIGOUR

facjorpbuwgmfacnorgnzimhfacdornxqkwbFACLOR

FACTORmidgebzbnlvkmidgeozxpbnomidgekybrxnzMIDGEW

MIDGEToutkaymhgbeioutjayhfsiqvoutvaycxezgr

OUTNAYOUTLAYsoeathcqfbilsceathwknoigsbeath

ubdoqySMEATHSHEATHconfedsavigyconfezaipxvqconfevsgauitCONFEW

CONFER(Appendixes continue)

66Appendix C
Stimuli in Experiment 3
T-all
prime

Unrelated
prime
competitor

bauodnhqtpicUnrelated Unrelated
prime
prime
identitynoWord Trials

TargetCompetitor

AROUND

iwjetyifymqgABOUND

caihgnxfyqjuyjxblswjefbyACHING

ACTING

raftluvosdegxsjbedoecikp

ARTFULARMFULabinhsdepuqgyeuotfckpxlf

BANISHVANISHebrasdmnxlczytuclw

vicqpj

BEARDS

BOARDSebkcnoltmivpluxzqdytmazxBECKONRECKONlbaehcktjmznujvxyfoizxwqBLEACH

BREACHrbdielkjfumw

fcupamjtposqBRIDLEBRIDGErbiueswfopdqmznahqxknhgzBRUISECRUISE

acdnelwvogqmpyfvmiktsiqyCANDLEHANDLE

ackstejgvyrowivrqgigxlhdCASKET

BASKEThcnastxlzjpmgjwvmljbpxomCHANTSCHARTS

hcvisewakpuyrpfkagkabqxt

CHIVESCHIMES

lcwadekohnmsyzjpxhbzvkmn

CLAWEDFLAWEDlcwosnmhbjyv

ikqzeufphaydCLOWNSCROWNS

ocxadeknbsufqifuzyrnfibh

COAXED

COATED

ocawdrbegivlgsluxmleufhnCOWARDTOWARDrcniegmkytwdmwphqbolyaphCRINGEFRINGE

edtpshywfbjqgqfrixbnqyrf

DEPTHS

DEATHS

retociwvjmsgwypsgunbfdlqEROTICEXOTIClfsayhnrxkcipvunmirbzxnqFLASHYFLESHYignastwcypmbwdobzcckyuwoGIANTSGRANTS

lgbosetwufxjjztdxrkqrwxuGLOBESGLOVESrgpashzcxqdjbmkvxjovkbcdGRAPHSGRAPES

ojkcyemnpfqduxdftsnsltduJOCKEY

HOCKEYojnistqyebvxyhxklzmcehbrJOINTS

POINTS

elomsnrfybpzzxcpgw

gvbyptLEMONSDEMONS

ilazdryboxnebuoxqcjxobsmLIZARD

WIZARD

amunerbpvyliqlcvxk

xdbqoi

MANURE

MATURE

imhgytpndxbqarnxvpflnwoxMIGHTYEIGHTY

anevslxpzkdr

rtwkjdfwigdqNAVELSNOVELS

oniveclxsmbyzhqgwusdukhgNOVICENOTICE

aprideocglsbcztklgmkqovl

PAIRED

PAINEDepirhsfbtjwlwbmzutdutwlvPERISHPARISH

lpcadirkhnvsonwxzfvfuxog

PLACID

PLACED

lpqaeuyotmwnxnwhykiowmdf

PLAQUE

PLAGUE67

optrylcishkfukbhzjmwnskgPORTLYPARTLY

opnuecqxmkhsrsgiqtjktqifPOUNCE

BOUNCE

rpaehcdzlyow

iwugdvdnskzjPREACH

BREACHuqtosarvnyxpjnfhvbwzrpbyQUOTASQUOTES

erisngpbqzlwakuxzhcvmblfRESIGNDESIGN

aspmelfhrjbkhoqgdxugvyqjSAMPLESIMPLE

asinytmzwblumkdfjpkgrmczSANITYVANITYcsarlw

eyzmntkfgdtqmbeqxfSCRAWLSPRAWLhsirenlwqgayfouqltadoxcpSHRINESHRINKlsvirepoatcnypgctdzdactxSLIVERSHIVER

psnilajtwyuchmqcouuehdwbSPINALSPIRAL

psiltnwbvjkqaehxkbxfckmgSPLINTSPRINTqseulajrptfnvcjbdmcxnrgzSQUEALSQUEAK

qsiutnzmjxwb

kpovwyclgpkySQUINTSQUIRTtsrahcgodzvuldybfujovnqp

STARCHSEARCHtsaeymupkzvokxwpuqohlfnuSTEAMYSTEADYnuasdiowhqtbgebtcxmltroeUNSAIDUNPAID

subaelivymqx

fxyhkiwrtkjhUSABLEUNABLE

avlustqnbjrgnoikrenohidp

VAULTS

FAULTS

ovtrxezmhuijgakibfhwjgikVORTEXCORTEXrwtehcvfzxjpiolgjvklvudyWRETCHWRENCHoytushfpenzqqgbfkv

lrgvpxYOUTHS

MOUTHS

acevnrhqswdgqpmjgbxhmwyg

CAVERN

TAVERN

ertclaoijbzxmuojbzqifxmbRECTALRENTAL

csermaklbuopqbwfdhkfdbozSCREAMSTREAM

ofbrdijngzwaexqwyv

gqwktjFORBID

MORBIDehbrlaqdyngzcqztsxfzxsjdHERBALVERBAL

ehmrtisawxgzkcnzjqbdwokqHERMITPERMIT

ohlwdenycfpgrxaiyumnargkHOWLED

BOWLEDelignotsacdxzbjtmatyxjazLEGIONREGION

usklderbmahowprymfvxbyrp

SULKED

SUCKEDhciasnzmvbldqltxwdmqgfzpCHAINSCHAIRS

iptsnoufbzekdweqgxvdukgxPISTONPISTOL

tspaelqxvjgigyzdir

wdfjkcSTAPLESTABLE

rtpieljgzahmjsvknmhamsozTRIPLE

TRIFLE

arsnmoguctzhexiqycqvlgpwRANSOMRANDOMedotrucbpsxzhmfbkcfsxwlg

DETOURDEVOUR

atliroqhcxzpujckgmynxezkTAILORSAILOR

imdlweybugkozhjtopysjvqcMILDEWMILDER

uoltwagdipzhxgmifpifbpsj

OUTLAW

OUTLAYrwaehtpxsjvkfxqcuoqysonmWREATH

BREATHocvnxebzqtrgqhaurldklgjw

CONVEXCONVEY68

Nonword Trials
nauoeszykplqigtykw

qgpydcANOUSE

AROUSE

neicgnaxlrohrlqwhuprwavzENCINGENDING

rartlafgcqpnmguqfopbdkziARTRALASTRALacinestrvqxuxturlw

bugplkCANISECANINEeblasmohudjttunxov

zgyxkf

BEALMSREALMS

uckcnorflmxilftbritlhfgxCUCKONCUCKOOlbaeskwcfoqygctyxh

hvdwoyBLEAKS

BREAKS

lfbielpzdtumtxpkanmzdqtsFLIBLEFOIBLElsiueshdrkqxofmgrxbpfojqSLUISESLUICEacbrelhytwqdoxuisdgqvzkfCARBLE

MARBLE

achmtebwjxvzigxsyddwjynxCAMHET

CACHEThctahcyenjvbbirzmyubyjseCHATCH

THATCHhcsistwnvqjpbgofnqpaqlbxCHISTSCHESTSlctahcwydbiv

fdviqyjbzyde

CLATCH

CLUTCHlclosdfmwzgxnwzhfvkqebtf

CLOLDSCLOUDSoctaehfqkidnnzivrbnkmgsb

COATHE

LOATHEocaretfbpzwsnpfvjybhfznqCORATECURATE

rctiehnpmdvuupjqynqpxomaCRITHEWRITHE

edgnhtspuorcaysbfpbopxksDENGTHLENGTHtenucifxqkmbmszdjrwobqagETUNICETHNICpsnaydvjlberkuljzr

ulbfiw

SPANDYSHANDYiwlasdonmgfybnmyuoobufxqWIALDSWIELDS

rwbosemxytfcgtvkjzmtylniWROBESPROBESrguasnloehqfjcehxdwjhldxGRAUNSGRAINS

ivkcyegaroqzsplrqjuldjrq

VICKEYMICKEYojtnshwueabxrzdplw

kduyaxJONTHSMONTHS

elopstciyznhhakxrnyfvcrzLEPOTSDEPOTS

afazdrptuqcv

ugqpxwxcnjyiFAZARDHAZARDamonspzfxtbw

czfehkviyhue

MANOPSMANORS

omtryh

iupvfjljvasinjkucv

MORTHY

WORTHYanansljvuhtidjxifpxjduhp

NANALSCANALS

enivelduxyzajucbyfkumdtg

NEVILEREVILE

apmrhtiknzuoixukvobidsnoPARMTHWARMTHemidhsjcgabr

tpjfcvxcjyvlMEDISH

MODISHpsyadibvrfmhofqmtnnkjwrbSPAYIDSPAYEDlpraeckwfjnsmxuqjnydxjvh

PLARCE

PLAICEomksylvgxbrpenpgaw

xjefpiMOSKLYMOSTLYoprustjfahgedgaejmebvqdw

POURTS

COURTS

rpuohcyvstnajqbswmzestaw

PROUCH

CROUCH

httosojivbqfljrbvmqgkvwyTHOTOSPHOTOS

erasephyngqkbntgyoxgcyukRESAPERESALE

arptelcdsjihnucvbjgiqownRATPLERATTLE69

uminynzcwbfkjwkscxxzgsbeMUNINY

MUTINYcsarscimleqdgefjuw

ydqhtbSCRACSSCRAPS

hsirtsbklxyexgqlebovejgkSHRISTSHRIFT

wsdirekhvqnjcuxobqmgntaq

SWIDERSPIDER

psnitiehjcqdjwfxqgmxflcw

SPINITSPIRITpsilsbfcqxghcgmawjuodmacSPLIBSSPLITS

qseulevtwgnpgonhkdxymonbSQUEELSQUEALqsiuev

fkybwnhlopgybyakop

SQUIVESQUIREtsraegqwjmuhmifjnlfynuhbSTARGESTARVEtseeykjcfbrvbfzwhxpomxwqSTEEKYSTEELYnuisepdahcyxjkxhbzazgbwcUNSIPEUNRIPEtocaelwvshynvbgpnqjhfsyxOTACLEORACLE

avkwdeixyjsgronfmqsqmptyVAWKED

HAWKED

ejtrxehcvukpnpblguqlhnzgJERTEXAERTEX

rwnesdzcipqbbfozmybyvcig

WRENDS

TRENDS

nyhcdepbuxwtsjukrourjsxvYNCHEDINCHEDacedsmrjkqypfhnrpxbqrjvw

CADEMSCADETS

ersclijmybtvmfwbdgjdyauhRECSILRECOIL

htermapqnycblnjpyqlvfwyzTHREAM

THREAD

ufgrdiqzxslvpohcnqbawlzyFURGIDTURGID

uhgnlaivztbxrpevzjwyrctjHUNGALFUNGAL

uhmbticvnfwzdzqvockoqrlxHUBMITSUBMITohpresnixtjlgualqivazqxmHORPSECORPSEelemnarwfgchpysouczpgyjvLEMEANDEMEAN

usprdetibmnfbacjzvlzxkvt

SURPED

SURGEDhcwaspnitqojiuvyxgyjfvxnCHAWPSCHAMPS

uctsnoqdihlywehygpdirvqgCUSTONCUSTOMhcdaelfukomzxfiznunvifxpCHADLECRADLE

rpmielwjnocxhvqusfdquhav

PRIMLEPRIMLYarnnyougbjclkxlziw

ldehkqRANNOYTANNOYerogruqjkxhavkwypx

azmjkqREGOUR

RIGOUR

aflcroqimhkgiusqwzxzpdhkFACLOR

FACTOR

imgdwefnrxoyjknbhv

jzpfaxMIDGEW

MIDGET

uontyabrkmsexkihvjvbdkwj

OUTNAYOUTLAYmsaehtruplgycdybpnwyblouSMEATHSHEATHocfnweqvhjaxmljduvtkuxpz

CONFEW

CONFER70