The negative compatibility effect: A case for self-inhibition.

Reaction times showed neither a main effect of Compatibility nor a main effect of Group, both F s < 2.3, both ps > .11, but a highly significant interaction between these factors, F (4, 48) = 5.13, MSE = 25.67, p = .002.

also in 132,142 other papers

As expected, the additional 50-ms group D showed the same pattern of priming effects as group C, with NCEs that were significant for RTs, F (2, 14) = 12.38, MSE = 31.69, p = .003, one-tailed, and approached significance for error rates, F (2, 14) = 2.29, MSE = 2.59, p = .085, one-tailed.

also in 8,237 other papers

4 Note that the marginally significant below-chance performance with 17-ms primes in group C (see also Verleger et al., 2005 ) was not replicated in group D. 5 This is in contrast to the model proposed by Verleger, Kötter, Jaśkowski, Sprenger, and Siebner ( 2006 ), where inhibition of the primed response is only indirect, resulting from the activation of the opposite response. 6 This hypothesis is based on the assumption that forced choice performance is affected (at least in part) by the same basic response activation mechanisms as performance in the masked prime task.

also in 26,082 other papers