In phonological form preparation, speakers are able to prepare in advance when to-be-spoken words share initial segments, despite not knowing which word they will be asked to produce. The standard account viewed preparation as partial production and therefore claimed that all possible words must share that segment (e.g. Roelofs, 1997). Alternatively, preparation occurs through a flexible sustained attention process that is external to production. Recently, O’Seaghdha and Frazer (2014) demonstrated preparation benefits in non-unanimous sets using picture naming and word reading versions of the blocked cyclic task, though not in the more attentionally-demanding paired associates version. Here, the current studies demonstrate small, but significant, preparation benefits using the paired-associates task, but only when cue-target pairs are highly associated (e.g. dog-cat, oreo-cookie, hot-cold, worm-bait). This finding supports the sustained attentional account of preparation in word production.

Cognition as a grouping of mental processes has always been fundamentally linked to that of the brain. Yet more recently, the acellular slime mold known as P. polycephalum has been observed to complete various tasks associated with cognition without the need for a brain. The most notable feat of P. polycephalum has been repeatedly solving mazes with greater efficiency on each subsequent run. This has led to the speculation that P. polycephalum may possess the ability to learn. Comparatively, various developments in computation have led to algorithms and robotic systems that also appear to have the capacity to “learn.” Utilizing the same maze structure to test both P. polycephalum and various computational methods, we quantitatively map and compare the effectiveness and means by which each solves the problem. With this, we hope to provide greater insight into brainless problem-solving in both biological organisms and machines.

Structural priming is a heavily studied and multi-faceted phenomenon. Essentially, when other factors are equal, syntax shows a tendency to repeat across utterances with potential gains in fluency (Pickering & Ferreira, 2008). Lexical repetition, particularly repetition of the verb between utterances enhances structural priming significantly (Mahowald et al., 2016), but this lexical-boost is not as long-lasting (Hartsuiker et al., 2008). Previous research on structural priming has heavily leaned on measures of syntactic choice, but a few studies have also measured initiation time (Smith & Wheeldon, 2001). The current study looks to differentiate effects of lexical and structural repetition benefits in initiation latency as a measure of potential fluency increases in sentence production. Results suggest that benefits in fluency are dependent on lexical and structural repetition.