52% Yes, a signiicant crisis 3% No, there is no crisis 7% Don't know 38% Yes, a slight crisis 38% Yes, a slight crisis 1,576 RESEARCHERS SURVEYED M ore than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research. The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproduc-ibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature. Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology 1 and cancer biology 2 , found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively. Our survey respondents were more optimistic: 73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence. The results capture a confusing snapshot of attitudes around these issues, says Arturo Casadevall, a microbiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. "At the current time there is no consensus on what reproducibility is or should be. " But just recognizing that is a step forward, he says. "The next step may be identifying what is the problem and to get a consensus. "

In this study, we investigated semantic context effects in language production with event-related brain potentials, extracted from the ongoing EEG recorded during overt speech production. We combined the picture-word interference paradigm and the semantic blocking paradigm to investigate the temporal dynamics and functional loci of semantic facilitation and interference effects. Objects were named in the context of semantically homogeneous blocks consisting of related objects and heterogeneous blocks consisting of unrelated objects. In each blocking condition, semantically related and unrelated distractor words were presented. Results show that classic patterns of semantically induced facilitation and interference effects in RTs can be directly related to ERP modulations located at temporal and frontal sites, starting at about 200 msec. Results also suggest that the processes associated with semantic facilitation and interference effects (i.e., conceptual and lexical processing) are highly interactive and coincide in time. Implications for the use of event-related brain potentials in speech production research and implications for current models of speech production are discussed.

The investigation of semantic context effects has served as a valuable tool in investigating mechanisms of language production. Classic semantic interference effects have provided influential support for and interest in a competitive lexical selection mechanism. However, recent interest in semantic facilitation effects has stimulated a discussion on whether context effects reflect competition during lexical selection. In this review we propose a framework of lexical selection by competition that is sensitive to the activation of lexical cohorts. We outline our proposal and then present a selective review of the empirical evidence, much of which has been central to the development of alternative non-competitive models. We suggest that by adopting the assumptions of our proposal we can parsimoniously account for a majority of the discussed semantic facilitation and interference effects.Investigations of semantic context effects, a widely used tool to study the architecture of the speech production system, have considerably shaped our assumptions on the nature of lexical selection. Traditionally the term semantic context has referred primarily to the relationship between a target stimulus and some second stimulus within an experiment. In this paper, we intend semantic context to refer to any meaning-constraining context, i.e., discourse context, experimental context, situational context, within which a target word is uttered.

In this article, the authors explore semantic context effects in speaking. In particular, the authors investigate a marked discrepancy between categorically and associatively induced effects; only categorical relationships have been reported to cause interference in object naming. In Experiments 1 and 2, a variant of the semantic blocking paradigm was used to induce two different types of semantic context effects. Pictures were either named in the context of categorically related objects (e.g., animals: bee, cow, fish) or in the context of associatively related objects from different semantic categories (e.g., apiary: bee, honey, bee keeper). Semantic interference effects were observed in both conditions, relative to an unrelated context. Experiment 3 replicated the classic effects of categorical interference and associative facilitation in a picture-word interference paradigm with the material used in Experiment 2. These findings suggest that associates are active lexical competitors and that the microstructure of lexicalization is highly flexible and adjustable to the semantic context in which the utterance takes place.

This paper aims to determine whether iconic tracing gestures produced while speaking constitute part of the speaker's communicative intention. We used a picture description task in which speakers must communicate the spatial and color information of each picture to an interlocutor. By establishing the necessary minimal content of an intended message, we determined whether speech produced with concurrent gestures is less explicit than speech without gestures. We argue that a gesture must be communicatively intended if it expresses necessary information that was nevertheless omitted from speech. We found that speakers who produced iconic gestures representing spatial relations omitted more required spatial information from their descriptions than speakers who did not gesture. These results provide evidence that speakers intend these gestures to communicate. The results have implications for the cognitive architectures that underlie the production of gesture and speech.In the course of speaking, people regularly produce gestures that are temporally synchronized and semantically tied to their speech. Intuitively, one might assume that speakers produce these co-speech gestures to create a fuller, more expressive message than can be created with speech alone. However, research on gesture and communication has yet to clearly demonstrate that speakers use gestures to convey information or that speakers view their own gestures as communicatively informative (see Kendon, 1994 for a review).The question of whether and how gestures contribute to communication is complex and should be broken into separate questions focusing on the addressee and the speaker independently. While some research has shown that