Validity of eye movement methods and indices for capturing semantic (associative) priming effects.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the usefulness of eye movement methods and indices as a tool for studying priming effects by verifying whether eye movement indices capture semantic (associative) priming effects in a visual cross-format (written word to semantically related picture) priming paradigm. METHOD: In the stimuli development phase, words semantically associated to an array of pictures were generated based on 100 adults' association data for each picture. A total of 40 additional adult participants with normal language engaged in an eye movement experiment using the word-picture associations developed previously. The design consisted of each prime preceding a display showing 1 high-association (target) and 2 low-association (nontarget) images. Fixation durations, locations, and latencies were measured. RESULTS: Images semantically related to the prime showed greater fixation durations and shorter latencies compared to nontargets. Eye movement and traditional reaction time measures were found to correlate for some of the experimental conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Results showed that free-viewing eye movement measures, in which participants are not instructed to look at anything in particular, hold promise as valid indicators of priming effects. Further research in this area will help to advance language-processing theories in individuals with and without language impairment.

Comparison of alternatives to multidimensional scoring in the assessment of language comprehension in aphasia.

PURPOSE: Multidimensional scoring methods yield valuable information about communication abilities. However, issues of training demands for valid and reliable scoring, especially in current service delivery contexts, may preclude common usage. Alternatives to multidimensional scoring were investigated in a sample of adults with aphasia. METHOD: One alternative method involved modified multidimensional scoring; the others incorporated correct/incorrect scoring. The scores for the 3 alternative methods were derived from the scores obtained using the traditional multidimensional method. Revised Token Test scores obtained using the traditional multidimensional method were collected from 10 participants with aphasia. These scores were manipulated to yield 3 additional sets of scores corresponding to the alternative methods. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the traditional multidimensional method and 1 of the correct/incorrect methods. Significant differences were found between traditional multidimensional scoring and each of the other 2 methods. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings suggest that simpler scoring systems might yield similar data to traditional multidimensional scoring. If simpler alternative methods yield similar results, using alternative scoring methods with published tests based on multidimensional scoring will help expand their use in everyday clinical practice.