Cover not available

In:The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 15:2 (2020) ► pp.366–383

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required
Methodological and analytic considerations

Can the maze task be even more amazing?

Adapting the maze task to advance psycholinguistic experimentation

 | Brock University
 | Brock University
Published online: 6 November 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.20027.gal
Abstract
The maze task (Forster, K., Guerrera, C., & Elliot, L. (2009). The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behavior Research Methods 2009, 411, 163–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Forster, K. (2010). Using a maze task to track lexical and sentence processing. The Mental Lexicon, 51, 347–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) 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.
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
References (17)
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Forster, K., Guerrera, C., & Elliot, L. (2009). The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behavior Research Methods 2009, 411, 163–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). The nature of compounds: a psychocentric perspective. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 311, 8–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, X. (2015). Language control in bilingual language comprehension: evidence from the maze task. Frontiers in Psychology. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Witzel, J., & Forster, K. (2015). Lexical co-occurrence and ambiguity resolution. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(2), 158–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Gallant, Jordan & Kerry Sluchinski
2023. Non-gendered pronoun processing: an investigation of the gender non-specific third person singular pronoun ‘TA’ in Chinese. Discourse Processes 60:8 ► pp. 535 ff. DOI logo
Crepaldi, Davide, Marcello Ferro, Claudia Marzi, Andrea Nadalini, Vito Pirrelli & Loukia Taxitari
2022. Finger Movements and Eye Movements During Adults’ Silent and Oral Reading. In Developing Language and Literacy [Literacy Studies, 23], ► pp. 443 ff. DOI logo
Pissani, Laura & Roberto G. de Almeida
2022. Can you mend a broken heart? Awakening conventional metaphors in the maze. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 29:1 ► pp. 253 ff. DOI logo
Libben, Gary, Jordan Gallant & Wolfgang U. Dressler
2021. Textual Effects in Compound Processing: A Window on Words in the World. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Structural Priming in the Grammatical Network [Constructional Approaches to Language, 35], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue