Can the maze task be even more amazing?

References

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. Libben, G.
    (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]