Negative priming

Negative priming is an implicit memory effect in which prior

exposure to a stimulus unfavorably influences the response to the
same stimulus. It falls under the category of priming, which refers
to the change in the response towards a stimulus due to a
subconscious memory effect. Negative priming describes the slow
and error-prone reaction to a stimulus that is previously ignored.[1]
For example, a subject may be imagined trying to pick a red pen
from a pen holder. The red pen becomes the target of attention, so
the subject responds by moving their hand towards it. At this time, Initially, the person picks out the red
they mentally block out all other pens as distractors to aid in closing pen and therefore it is the prime
in on just the red pen. After repeatedly picking the red pen over the target while the remaining pens in the
others, switching to the blue pen results in a momentary delay holder are considered to be prime
picking the pen out (however, there is a decline in the negative distractors. When the person wants
priming effect when there is more than one nontarget item that is to use the blue pen (probe target)
selected against[2]). The slow reaction due to the change of the instead, negative priming effects are
distractor stimulus to target stimulus is called the negative priming observed as the blue pen was
effect. previously ignored as the prime
distractor.
Negative priming is believed to play a crucial role in attention and
memory retrieval processes. When stimuli are perceived through
the senses, all the stimuli are encoded within the brain, where each stimulus has its own internal
representation. In this perceiving process, some of the stimuli receive more attention than others. Similarly,
only some of them are stored in short-term memory. Negative priming is highly related to the selective
nature of attention and memory.

Broadly, negative priming is also known as the mechanism by which inhibitory control is applied to
cognition. This refers only to the inhibition stimuli that can interfere with the current short-term goal of
creating a response.[3] The effectiveness of inhibiting the interferences depends on the cognitive control
mechanism as a higher number of distractors yields higher load on working memory. Increased load on
working memory can in turn result in slower perceptual processing leading to delayed reaction. Therefore,
negative priming effect depends on the amount of distractors, effectiveness of the cognitive control
mechanism and the availability of the cognitive control resources.[4]

Contents
Theories and classic models
Distractor inhibition model
Episodic retrieval model
Houghton–Tipper model
Feature mismatch hypothesis
Temporal discrimination model
Characteristics of negative priming in experiments
Experimental terminology
Stimulus modality
 RSI effects
Neuroanatomy and imaging
Pathology
Conclusion
See also
References
External links

Theories and classic models

There are a number of theories and models that try to explain the reason behind negative priming. They all
try to reason negative priming's role in cognition and justify why it occurs. A few of the well-known
models are presented below.

Distractor inhibition model

Distractor inhibition model is the oldest model that explains the

negative priming effect as the result of selective attention to a target
stimulus. When we pay attention to a particular stimulus, we
perceive other stimuli surrounding the target as distractors in order
to help focus. But when one of those distractors becomes the new
target of attention, our response to the target is hampered due to
immediate residual inhibition.[5][6] Selective attention is the ability
to respond to a specific object when there are other distractors that Distractor inhibition model with
also compete for a response. To explain this selective attention, the selective attention and encoding
distractor inhibition model proposes a dual mechanism involving process.
excitation to boost target signal and inhibition to suppress
distractors. This inhibition is triggered when there is a mismatch
between the internal representations of the target and a distractor. Inhibition of the distractor's internal
representation is a way of helping to selectively attend to the target stimulus. This inhibition decays
gradually when the stimulus is no longer present to help with the next target. However, if a distractor
stimulus is re-encountered as the target, the internal representation of the distractor stimulus may continue to
be suppressed because it is too soon for the decay to dissipate already. This is referred to as the transient
residual inhibition. This inhibition also impairs the processing of an appropriate response to the new target
stimulus and results in greater reaction time.[5][7]

There are a few problems associated with this inhibition model. This model accounts for negative priming
only when the stimuli are repetitively ignored as distractors during a goal directed behavior of selecting the
target stimulus. This model does not support negative priming effects found in cases short of goal directed
behavior. Another issue is that negative priming effects have been found to be long-term contradicting to
the proposed transient residual inhibition.[8] Long-term persistence of negative priming questions the
validity of the distractor inhibition model.

Episodic retrieval model

The episodic retrieval model is the current popular model and
explains that negative priming occurs due to memory retrieval. This
model theorizes that each encounter with a stimulus is encoded and
stored separately as an individual episode. Each episode includes
perceptual details of both the stimuli and the response developed
for that stimulus. When a stimulus is encountered the second time,
the previous episode regarding that stimulus along with its tags of
perceptual details, role in selective attention, and response given are
all retrieved automatically. When the repetitively ignored distractor Episode retrieval model with the
stimulus is encountered as the target, a tag associated with the retrieval of "do-not-respond" tag.
response to the stimulus is also retrieved. This response tag of a
distractor will likely be "do-not-respond" tag as opposed to the
"respond" tag of the target stimulus. Retrieval of the previous "do-not respond" tag of the stimulus conflicts
with the current "respond" tag. This presents a problem of whether to respond or not. Resolving this
conflict takes time and produces negative priming effect.[1][9]

Episode retrieval model has gained more popularity over the last decade compared to the distractor
inhibition model due to the issues with long-term negative priming. Episode retrieval varies from the
distractor inhibition model because it claims that the negative priming occurs only when the memory of the
stimuli is retrieved and not during the encoding of the distractor stimuli. Recent findings lean towards this
model but the model itself is not entirely complete. Its idea of association tags like the "do-not-respond" tag
is vague and needs concrete evidence to support this model.

Houghton–Tipper model

Due to the issues found with the distractor inhibition model, Tipper
and Houghton modified the distractor inhibition model to account
for long-term negative priming effects. The original inhibition
account proposed that inhibition occurs only when the distractors
are suppressed. The Houghton–Tipper model revised this
proposition and claims that inhibition occurs during both the
encoding of distractors and the retrieval of that memory. The main Houghton–Tipper model with
reason for this change is to explain the long-term negative priming inhibition occurring during encoding
and justify it using the new combined model. When a repeated and retrieval.
distractor becomes the target, processing of this stimulus
automatically retrieves the memory of the stimulus being inhibited
as a distractor. This model suggests that inhibition occurs when ignoring the distractor and during the
memory retrieval of the previous ignorance of the stimulus.[5] Therefore, it incorporates the inhibition
account in selective attention and the episode retrieval model.

Feature mismatch hypothesis

This theory proposes that negative priming effect is the result of interference due to the target being located
where the distractor was once located.[1] When the target stimulus and distractor stimulus are repeatedly
placed in the same location, we know their respective location and pay attention more to the location of the
target than the target itself. Our response to the target is also faster because we have already identified
where to pay attention. This is called Simon effect, which refers our innate tendency to respond faster and
more accurately when stimuli occur in the same location. This can be explained by neuroscience in terms of
neural facilitation and short-term plasticity. However, if the positions of the stimuli are not the same as
before, it is no longer easy to attend to the target as it once was. The feature mismatch hypothesis states that
inhibition occurs when there is a mismatch between the target and its location. This theory is explains the
effects of location specific negative priming but lacks in its justification of negative priming when location
is not involved.[10] It deviates from the distractor inhibition model to describe location specific negative
priming but has more loop holes than the other models.

Temporal discrimination model

Temporal discrimination model attempts to blend in both the selective attention and memory retrieval
aspects of negative priming in a less complex model. It is based on the assumption that negative priming is
caused only at the moment of response to a stimulus that was previously considered distractor.[11] This
model explains negative priming as the delayed response due to confusion in classifying a stimulus as old
or new. A new stimulus is immediately classified as new and undergoes perceptual processing. A repeated
old stimulus is familiar and cues the automatic retrieval of the prior episode. A stimulus that has been
repetitively ignored prior to becoming the target is neither entirely new nor old. This ambiguity slows down
the processing of the stimuli. The temporal discrimination model points to this ambiguity as the cause of
slowed categorization of the stimulus leading to negative priming effect. Like feature mismatch hypothesis,
this model also claims that negative priming is not due to selective attention of the target or the inhibition of
the distractor. This model argues that "negative priming is an emergent consequence of a discrimination
process that is inherent to memory retrieval". Temporal discrimination model explains negative priming
without reference to inhibition of distractors or the "do not respond" tag and by simple discrimination of
"old", "new" and "in between" categories.[11]

Characteristics of negative priming in experiments

Experimental terminology

Experiments on negative priming consist of two main components: prime and probe. Prime trial tries to
mimic real life experiences of distractor stimuli in target selection but with more repetition to get
quantifiable negative priming data. It comprises the initial presentation and the repetitive trials of the target
and the distractor stimuli. It is set up such that a set of distractor stimuli are constantly ignored in the process
of target selection. In the previous example provided, prime refers to the repeated perception of the blue pen
as the distractor. Probe trial in an experiment refers to the actual testing for negative priming effects. In this
trial, the repeated distractor of the prime trial is presented as the target. The reaction time of the response for
the probe target (prime distractor) is measured to quantify the negative priming effect.

Some experiments may use additional interferences such as changing the position of the stimuli or
presenting completely irrelevant stimuli during either of these trials.[3] The magnitude of negative priming
effects are found to be higher with these interferences. Interferences are used to investigate how the
response to the distractor changes under conditions of a third interfering stimulus.

Stimulus modality

The primary two stimulus modalities used for negative priming research are visual and auditory stimulus
materials. The stimulus presented varied from objects or symbols in visual field to human voices or artificial
sounds. Stronger negative priming effects are found for auditory stimulus but the standardized effect sizes
between the modalities did not vary.[1] Evidence for negative priming has also been found across various
modes of response including vocal naming, manual key press, and reaching.[3] Negative priming was
observed for various types of judgment such as identification, categorization, matching, counting and
localization. The tasks used to find evidence for negative priming
includes Stroop color–word task, lexical decision task,
identification, matching, and localization tasks. The Stroop color–
word task utilizes the Stroop effect to observe the distractor
suppression and negative priming. Identification tasks present a set
of images, sounds, words, symbols, or letters and require the
subject to select the prime target based a particular feature that Example of Stroop color–word task
differentiates the target from the distractor. Lexical decision utilizes with control, prime and probe trials.
semantic knowledge of the subject and tests the subject ability to
remember the multiple meanings and uses of one word. For
example, the word "bank" has multiple meanings and can be referred in different contexts such as "bank is
a place where money is deposited" or "banks of a river".[3] Matching tasks require subjects to respond
"same" or "different" by matching the target letters or shapes with the explicitly specified goal while
ignoring the distractor. Localization tasks require some form of movement of subjects to respond to the
location of the target stimulus.[12] This type of localization task is especially used to test the feature
mismatch hypothesis as it provides evidence for negative priming during the mismatch of the location and
target stimuli.

RSI effects

Response–stimulus interval (RSI) is another form of data that is used to quantify negative priming. RSI is
the time difference between the response to prime target and the onset of probe trial. Negative priming
effects are observed for delays of 20 millisecond to 8000 millisecond between the prime trial and the probe
trial. Several experiments found that negative priming decays rapidly during this delay between prime and
probe trials.[3] Many studies have tried to find a rate of this decay but have not been successful.[9][13]
Researchers of both the distractor inhibition model and episode retrieval model use varying results of the
RSI effects to justify the decay as a part of their model. More globally accepted research is needed to
determine concrete RSI data and establish short-term and long-term negative priming limits.

Neuroanatomy and imaging

Neurological evidence of negative priming effects is being researched to help understand the physiological
aspects and to develop more accurate models. The most common method to find such neurological
evidence is by neuroimaging the brain using fMRI while subjects go through experiments of tasks that
prompt negative priming effects. The two primary bases for neurological evidence are the internal
representations of stimuli and memory retrieval. Most significantly activated regions of the brain are the left
temporal lobe, inferior parietal lobe, and the prefrontal cortex of the frontal lobe.[14] Evidence for internal
representations are found in the left anterior temporal cortex, which has been associated with abstract
semantic knowledge representations.[15] The left anterolateral temporal cortex was found to be directly
related to the magnitude of negative priming effect.[16] The inferior parietal lobe is connected to the shifts in
attention that occurs when attending to the distractors and the target. The inferior parietal cortex activated
whenever attention shifted from the distractor to target stimulus or vice versa.[14] Another significant area
of activation was found in the prefrontal cortex. The superior, inferior, and medial frontal gyri, and the
medial prefrontal cortex exhibited activation during the negative priming tasks.[17] Activations in the frontal
lobe has been associated with inhibitory network and selective attention. Similarly, evidences for semantic
representations and temporal lobe activations are used to support the episode retrieval model. In an fMRI
meta-analysis, in addition to the right middle frontal gyrus, left superior temporal gyrus and precuneus, the
anterior cingulate cortex was revealed across fMRI studies. Whether the cingulate cortex is directly
involved in negative priming processes or due to the contrast between congruent and mismatching stimuli is
still up for debate. [18] Additional investigations of the neurophysiological data of negative priming are
necessary to further clarify the relationship between selective attention and memory in negative priming.

Pathology
Negative priming is identified as one of the cognitive process necessary for goal directed behaviors. It is
associated with many cognitive processes such as inhibition, selective attention, encoding, memory
retrieval, and short-term memory. Neuropsychiatric disorders may be due to problems with some of the
above-mentioned areas of cognition. Currently, schizophrenia, obsessive compulsive disorder, and Tourette
syndrome are being studied with reference to negative priming.[17][19] Understanding the paradigm of
negative priming can lead to the use of negative priming tasks as diagnosing tools to identify the disorders.
Knowledge about the physiological basis of negative priming can also help in designing therapies or
treatment for neuropsychiatric disorders.

Conclusion
Among the four theories, the feature mismatch hypothesis and the temporal discrimination model lack solid
evidence and are inadequate. These two models differ slightly from the distractor inhibition model and
episode retrieval model respectively and can be incorporated into the latter two. The distractor inhibition
model was the dominant model until recent contradicting findings pointed to a retrieval mechanism in
negative priming.[1] The episode retrieval model is gaining more support for the memory based negative
priming but lacks in its explanation of the association tags. Perhaps, further research exploring both these
models may help to better understand the role of negative priming in attention, memory and cognition.

See also
Attention
Inhibition of return
Priming (psychology)
Thought suppression
Working memory

References
1. Mayr, S. & A. Buchner (2007) Negative priming as a memory phenomenon—A review of 20
years of negative priming research. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 215, 35–51.
2. Neumann, E. & DeSchepper, B.G. (1992). An inhibition-based fan effect: Evidence for an
active suppression mechanism in selective attention. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46
(1), 1-40.
3. Dempster, Frank N. (Ed); Brainerd, Charles J. (Ed), (1995). Interference and inhibition in
cognition. San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.
4. de Fockert, J. W., Mizon, G. A., & D'Ubaldo, M. (2010). No Negative Priming Without
Cognitive Control. Journal of Experimental Psychology–Human Perception and
Performance, 36(6), 1333–1341.
5. Tipper, S.P. (2001). Does negative priming reflect inhibitory mechanisms? A review and
integration of conflicting views. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Experimental Psychology, 54A, 321–343.
 6. Tipper, S.P. (1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory priming by ignored objects.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 37A, 571–
590.
7. Houghton, G., & Tipper, S. P. (1994). A model of inhibitory mechanisms in selective attention.
In D. Dagenbach & T. H. Carr (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention memory and language
(pp. 53–112). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press, xiv.
8. Grison, S., Tipper, S. P., & Hewitt, O. (2005). Long-term negative priming: Support for
retrieval of prior attentional processes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
Section a-Human Experimental Psychology, 58(7), 1199–1224.
9. Neill, W.T., Valdes, L.A., Terry, K.M., & Gorfein, D.S. (1992). Persistence of negative priming:
II. Evidence for episodic trace retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 18, 993–1000.
10. Park, J., & Kanwisher, N. (1994). Negative priming for spatial locations: Identity
mismatching, not distractor inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 20, 613–623.
11. Milliken, B., Joordens, S., Merikle, P.M., & Seiffert, A.E. (1998). Selective attention: A
reevaluation of the implications of negative priming. Psychological Review, 105, 203–229.
12. Tipper, S. P., Meegan, D., & Howard, L. A. (2002). Action-centered negative priming:
Evidence for reactive inhibition. Visual Cognition, 9(4–5), 591–614.
13. Tipper, S. P., Weaver, B., Cameron, S., Brehaut, J. C., & Bastedo, J. (1991). Inhibitory
mechanisms of attention in identification and localization tasks: Time course and disruption.
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning Memory And Cognition, 17(4), 681–692.
14. Steel, C., Haworth, E. J., Peters, E., Hemsley, D. R., Sharma, T., Gray, J. A., Pickering, A., et
al. (2001). Neuroimaging correlates of negative priming. NeuroReport, 12(16), 3619–3624.
15. McClelland, J.L., Rogers, T.T., 2003. The parallel distributed processing approach to
semantic cognition. Nature Reviews, Neuroscience, 4, 310–322.
16. de Zubicaray, G., McMahon, K., Eastburn, M., Pringle, A., Lorenz, L. (2006). Classic identity
negative priming involves accessing semantic representations in the left anterior temporal
cortex, NeuroImage, 33(1), 383–390.
17. . Wright, C.I., Keuthen, N.J., Savage, C.R., Martis, B., Williams, D., Wedig, M., McMullin, K.,
Rauch, S.L. (2006). Brain correlates of negative and positive visuospatial priming in adults,
NeuroImage, 30(3):983–991.
18. Yaple, Z., Arsalidou, M (2017). Negative priming: a meta‑analysis of fMRI studies,
Experimental Brain Research, 235(11), 3367-3374.
19. Egner, T., & Hirsch, J. (2005). Where memory meets attention: neural substrates of negative
priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(11), 1774–1784.

External links
Online lesson with online demonstration of negative priming (http://www.psytoolkit.org/lesso
ns/negative_priming.html) via PsyToolkit (http://www.psytoolkit.org)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Negative_priming&oldid=1067103617"

This page was last edited on 21 January 2022, at 19:07 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0;

additional terms may apply. By
using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.