Miscellaneous published in:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 15:2 (2020) ► pp. 366–383
Methodological and analytic considerations

Can the maze task be even more amazing?

Adapting the maze task to advance psycholinguistic experimentation

| Brock University
| Brock University

The maze task (Forster, Guererra & Elliot, 2009; Forster, 2010) is designed to measure focal lexical and sentence processing effects in a highly controlled manner. We discuss how this task can be modified and extended to provide a unique opportunity for the investigation of lexical effects in sentence context. We present results that demonstrate how the maze task can be used to examine both facilitation and inhibition effects. Most importantly, it can do this while leaving the target sentence unchanged across conditions. This is an advantage that is not available with other paradigms. We also present new versions of the maze task that allow for the isolation of specific lexical effects and that enhance the measurement of lexical recognition through visual animation. Finally, we discuss how the maze task brings to the foreground the extent to which complex multi-layered priming and inhibition are intrinsic to sentence reading and how the maze task can tap this complexity.

Keywords: methodology, maze task, lexical priming, sentence processing, gamification, incrementality
Article outline
  • It’s amazing already
    • The maze task and discrete unidirectionality
    • The maze task and incremental integration
  • How can it be more amazing?
  • How to use the maze task to investigate both lexical priming and interference effects
  • How to isolate specific lexical effects in sentence reading through maze simplification
  • How to enhance the measurement of lexical recognition time through visual animation
  • Experiment 1
    • Participants
    • Materials
    • Procedure
    • Results
      • Modeling
      • Prime condition
      • Maze type
  • Experiment 2
    • Participants
    • Materials
    • Procedures
    • Results
      • Data preparation
      • Modeling
  • General discussion
    • Experiment 1
    • Experiment 2 and additional maze task innovation
  • References
Published online: 06 November 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.20027.gal
References

References

Baayen, H. R., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D.
(2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 591, 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyce, V., Futrell, R., & Levy, R. P.
(2020) Maze Made Easy: Better and easier measurement of incremental processing difficulty. Journal of Language and Memory, 1111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Almeida, R. G., Gallant, J., Skurnac, M., & Libben, G.
(February 2020) Semantically ambiguous stems and the purpose of morphological processing. Nineteenth International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
de Almeida, R. G., Gallant, J., & Libben, G.
(2020) When the root of barking can access the tree: Eye-tracking and maze evidence for independent activation of semantically ambiguous morphological constituents in sentences. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Forster, K.
(2010) Using a maze task to track lexical and sentence processing. The Mental Lexicon, 51, 347–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forster, K., Guerrera, C., & Elliot, L.
(2009) The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behavior Research Methods 2009, 411, 163–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grainger, J., & Segui, J.
(1990) Neighborhood frequency effects in visual word recognition: A comparison of lexical decision and masked identification latencies. Perception and Psychophysics, 471, 191–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Saavedra, D. C.
(2018) The unidirectionality of semantic changes in grammaticalization: an experimental approach to the asymmetric priming hypothesis. English Language and Linguistics, 221, 357–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, K. A., Balota, D. A., Neely, J. H., Cortese, M. J., Cohen-Shikora, E. R., Tse, C.-S., Yap, M. J., Bengson, J. J., Niemeyer, D., & Buchanan, E.
(2013) The semantic priming project. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1099–1114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D.
(1982) Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1111, 228–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kieslich, P. J., Henninger, F., Wulff, D. U., Haslbeck, J. M. B., & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M.
(2019) Mouse-tracking: A practical guide to implementation and analysis. In M. Schulte-Mecklenbeck, A. Kühberger, & J. G. Johnson (Eds.), A Handbook of Process Tracing Methods. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Libben, G.
(2006) Why study compounds? An overview of the issues. In G. Libben & G. Jarema, (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words. Oxford: Oxford University Press (pp. 1–21).Google Scholar
(2014) The nature of compounds: a psychocentric perspective. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 311, 8–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirce, J., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M., Richard Höchenberger Sogo, H., … Jonas Kristoffer Lindelov
(2019) PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, X.
(2015) Language control in bilingual language comprehension: evidence from the maze task. Frontiers in Psychology. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witzel, J., & Forster, K.
(2015) Lexical co-occurrence and ambiguity resolution. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(2), 158–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witzel, N., Witzel, J., Forster, K.
(2012) Comparisons of online reading paradigms: Eye tracking, moving-window, and maze. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 411, 105–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar