Skip to main content
Log in

Now you see it … and now again: Semantic interference reflects lexical competition in speech production with and without articulation

  • Brief Reports
  • Published:
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Semantic interference effects in the picture—word interference (PWI) paradigm have long been assumed to reflect competitive mechanisms during lexical selection, a core component of the speech production system. However, recent observations of facilitative effects have cast doubt on the usefulness of the paradigm for investigating lexicalization, and on the existence of lexical competition in general. An alternative proposal suggests that lexical selection is not by competition, and that interference effects reflect articulatory processes outside the lexical system. Here, we contrast these theoretical alternatives with semantic distractor effects in the PWI paradigm. In two tasks, pictures were either overtly named or the names were manually classified. Interference effects of comparable magnitude were observed in both response modalities, regardless of whether the names were articulated or not. This finding supports lexical competition models and suggests that the articulators are not the source of interference in the PWI paradigm. Supplemental materials for this article may be downloaded from http://pbr.psychonomic-journals.org/content/supplemental.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abdel Rahman, R., & Melinger, A. (2007). When bees hamper the production of honey: Lexical interference from associates in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 604–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abdel Rahman, R., & Melinger, A. (2009a). Dismissing lexical competition does not make speaking any easier: A rejoinder to Mahon and Caramazza (2009). Language & Cognitive Processes, 24, 749–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abdel Rahman, R., & Melinger, A. (2009b). Semantic context effects in language production: A swinging lexical network proposal and a review. Language & Cognitive Processes, 24, 713–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alario, F.-X., Segui, J., & Ferrand, L. (2000). Semantic and associative priming in picture naming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 741–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belke, E., Meyer, A. S., & Damian, M. F. (2005). Refractory effects in picture naming as assessed in a semantic blocking paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 667–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloem, I., & La Heij, W. (2003). Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in word translation: Implications for models of lexical access in language production. Journal of Memory & Language, 48, 468–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bookheimer, S. Y., Zeffiro, T. A., Blaxton, T., Gaillard, W., & Theodore, W. (1995). Regional cerebral blood flow during object naming and word reading. Human Brain Mapping, 3, 93–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caramazza, A., & Costa, A. (2000). The semantic interference effect in the picture—word paradigm: Does the response set matter? Cognition, 75, B51-B64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, A., Alario, F.-X., & Caramazza, A. (2005). On the categorical nature of the semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 125–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damian, M. F., & Bowers, J. S. (2003). Locus of semantic interference in picture—word interference tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 111–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damian, M. F., & Martin, R. C. (1999). Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 25, 345–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Finkbeiner, M., & Caramazza, A. (2006). Now you see it, now you don’t: On turning semantic interference into facilitation in a Strooplike task. Cortex, 6, 790–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J., Carr, T. H., & Cao, Y. (2001). Comparing cortical activations for silent and overt speech using event-related fMRI. Human Brain Mapping, 15, 39–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, N., Schirm, W., Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2008). Semantic interference in a delayed naming task: Evidence for the response exclusion hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 34, 249–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuipers, J.-R., & La Heij, W. (2008). Semantic facilitation in category and action naming: Testing the message congruency account. Journal of Memory & Language, 58, 123–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuipers, J.-R., La Heij, W., & Costa, A. (2006). A further look at semantic context effects in language production: The role of response congruency. Language & Cognitive Processes, 21, 892–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Brain & Behavioral Sciences, 22, 313–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupker, S. J. (1979). The semantic nature of response competition in the picture—word interference task. Memory & Cognition, 7, 485–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupker, S. J., & Katz, A. N. (1981). Input, decision, and response factors in picture—word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 7, 269–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2009). Why does lexical selection have to be so hard? Comment on Abdel Rahman and Melinger’s swinging lexical network proposal. Language & Cognitive Processes, 24, 735–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahon, B. Z., Costa, A., Peterson, R., Vargas, K. A., & Caramazza, A. (2007). Lexical selection is not by competition: A reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 503–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim, G. M., & Dell, G. S. (2008). Inner speech slips exhibit lexical bias, but not the phonemic similarity effect. Cognition, 106, 528–537.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42, 107–142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roelofs, A. (2001). Set size and repetition matter: Comment on Caramazza and Costa (2000). Cognition, 80, 283–290.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roelofs, A. (2003). Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: Modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. Psychological Review, 110, 88–125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1990). Exploring the time course of lexical access in production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory & Language, 29, 86–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starreveld, P. A., & La Heij, W. (1995). Semantic interference, orthographic facilitation and their interaction in naming tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 686–698.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starreveld, P. A., & La Heij, W. (1996). Time-course analysis of semantic and orthographic context effects in picture-naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 896–918.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Lewis, W., & Garrett, M. F. (2004). Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 422–488.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeldon, L., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1995). Monitoring the time course of phonological encoding. Journal of Memory & Language, 34, 311–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rasha Abdel Rahman.

Additional information

This work was supported by Grants AB/277 3 and 4 from the German Research Foundation (DFG) to R.A.R.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Abdel Rahman, R., Aristei, S. Now you see it … and now again: Semantic interference reflects lexical competition in speech production with and without articulation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17, 657–661 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.657

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.657

Keywords

Navigation