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.
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.
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.
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.
Alario, F.-X., Segui, J., & Ferrand, L. (2000). Semantic and associative priming in picture naming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 741–764.
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.
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.
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.
Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177–208.
Caramazza, A., & Costa, A. (2000). The semantic interference effect in the picture—word paradigm: Does the response set matter? Cognition, 75, B51-B64.
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.
Damian, M. F., & Bowers, J. S. (2003). Locus of semantic interference in picture—word interference tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 111–117.
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.
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Brain & Behavioral Sciences, 22, 313–335.
Lupker, S. J. (1979). The semantic nature of response competition in the picture—word interference task. Memory & Cognition, 7, 485–495.
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.
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.
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.
Oppenheim, G. M., & Dell, G. S. (2008). Inner speech slips exhibit lexical bias, but not the phonemic similarity effect. Cognition, 106, 528–537.
Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42, 107–142.
Roelofs, A. (2001). Set size and repetition matter: Comment on Caramazza and Costa (2000). Cognition, 80, 283–290.
Roelofs, A. (2003). Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: Modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. Psychological Review, 110, 88–125.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wheeldon, L., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1995). Monitoring the time course of phonological encoding. Journal of Memory & Language, 34, 311–334.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.657