Volume 15, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The maze task (Forster, Guererra & Elliot, 2009Forster, 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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. 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, 59, 390–412. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  2. Boyce, V., Futrell, R., & Levy, R. P.
    (2020) Maze Made Easy: Better and easier measurement of incremental processing difficulty. Journal of Language and Memory, 111. 10.1016/j.jml.2019.104082
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104082 [Google Scholar]
  3. 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]
  4. 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]
  5. Forster, K.
    (2010) Using a maze task to track lexical and sentence processing. The Mental Lexicon, 5, 347–357. 10.1075/ml.5.3.05for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.5.3.05for [Google Scholar]
  6. Forster, K., Guerrera, C., & Elliot, L.
    (2009) The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behavior Research Methods 2009, 41, 163–171. 10.3758/BRM.41.1.163
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.1.163 [Google Scholar]
  7. Grainger, J., & Segui, J.
    (1990) Neighborhood frequency effects in visual word recognition: A comparison of lexical decision and masked identification latencies. Perception and Psychophysics, 47, 191–198. 10.3758/BF03205983
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205983 [Google Scholar]
  8. 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, 22, 357–380. 10.1017/S1360674316000496
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674316000496 [Google Scholar]
  9. 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. 10.3758/s13428‑012‑0304‑z
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0304-z [Google Scholar]
  10. Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D.
    (1982) Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228–238. 10.1037/0096‑3445.111.2.228
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.111.2.228 [Google Scholar]
  11. 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. InM. Schulte-Mecklenbeck, A. Kühberger, & J. G. Johnson (Eds.), A Handbook of Process Tracing Methods. New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315160559‑9
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315160559-9 [Google Scholar]
  12. Libben, G.
    (2006) Why study compounds? An overview of the issues. InG. Libben & G. Jarema, (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words. Oxford: Oxford University Press (pp.1–21).
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2014) The nature of compounds: a psychocentric perspective. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 31, 8–25. 10.1080/02643294.2013.874994
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2013.874994 [Google Scholar]
  14. 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:  10.3758/s13428‑018‑01193‑y
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y [Google Scholar]
  15. Wang, X.
    (2015) Language control in bilingual language comprehension: evidence from the maze task. Frontiers in Psychology. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01179
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01179 [Google Scholar]
  16. Witzel, J., & Forster, K.
    (2015) Lexical co-occurrence and ambiguity resolution. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(2), 158–185. 10.1080/01690965.2012.748925
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.748925 [Google Scholar]
  17. Witzel, N., Witzel, J., Forster, K.
    (2012) Comparisons of online reading paradigms: Eye tracking, moving-window, and maze. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41, 105–128. 10.1007/s10936‑011‑9179‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-011-9179-x [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error