Attention, gaze shifting, and dual-task interference from phonological encoding in spoken word planning.

Abstract

Controversy exists about whether dual-task interference from word planning reflects structural bottleneck or attentional control factors. Here, participants named pictures whose names could or could not be phonologically prepared, and they manually responded to arrows presented away from (Experiment 1), or superimposed onto, the pictures (Experiments 2 and 3); or they responded to tones (Experiment 4). Pictures and arrows/tones were presented at stimulus onset asynchronies of 0, 300, and 1,000 ms. Earlier research showed that vocal responding hampers auditory perception, which predicts earlier shifts of attention to the tones than to the arrows. Word planning yielded dual-task interference. Phonological preparation reduced the latencies of picture naming and gaze shifting. The preparation benefit was propagated into the latencies of the manual responses to the arrows but not to the tones. The malleability of the interference supports the attentional control account. This conclusion was corroborated by computer simulations showing that an extension of WEAVERϩϩ (A. Roelofs, 2003) with assumptions about the attentional control of tasks quantitatively accounts for the latencies of vocal responding, gaze shifting, and manual responding.

Locus of semantic interference in picture naming: Evidence from dual-task performance.

“…els of spoken word production (e.g., Abdel Rahman & Melinger, 2009, Damian & Martin, 1999, Levelt et al, 1999, Roelofs, 1992, 2003, 2007, 2008a, 2008b, Schriefers et al, 1990, Starreveld & La Heij, 1996.…”

“…A prominent account of this effect places it at the stage of lexical selection (e.g., Levelt et al, 1999). This account has been computationally implemented in several models, including the WEAVERϩϩ model (Levelt et al, 1999;Roelofs, 1992Roelofs, , 2003Roelofs, , 2007Roelofs, , 2008aRoelofs, , 2008b and the model of Starreveld and La Heij (1996).The assumption that the semantic interference effect arises during lexical selection was recently challenged by Dell'Acqua, Job, Peressotti, and Pascali (2007). These authors used PWI as part of a psychological refractory period (PRP) procedure (Pashler, 1984(Pashler, , 1994 to determine at which stage the semantic interference effect emerged.…”

“…Models of picture naming assume perceptual and conceptual encoding, lexical selection, word-form encoding, and articulation as the processing stages (e.g., Levelt et al, 1999;Roelofs, 2003). Lexical selection in models of picture naming corresponds to response selection in models of dual-task performance (e.g., Roelofs, 2007Roelofs, , 2008a. This is also assumed by Dell'Acqua et al In the remaining of the present article, we denote perceptual and conceptual encoding as pre-selection stages, lexical selection as response selection, and word-form encoding and articulation as post-selection stages.…”

Sources of individual differences in the speed of naming objects and actions: The contribution of executive control

“…It is, for instance, possible that there are specific components in the naming process that rely particularly strongly on updating ability. For instance, it has often been proposed that conceptual planning processes and self-monitoring processes require processing capacity (e.g., Levelt, 1989;Oomen & Postma, 2002), whereas lexical access, though not an automatic process (e.g., Cook & Meyer, 2008;Ferreira & Pashler, 2002;Roelofs, 2008a), might be lower in capacity demands. Updating ability might specifically affect the efficiency of the conceptual processes, but not so much the lexical retrieval processes.…”

“…These are general cognitive processes that define and maintain the individual's goals, recruit appropriate perceptual and response mechanisms, and monitor their performance (e.g., Norman & Shallice, 1986;Posner & Petersen, 1990). When we speak, we need to choose our words wisely (e.g., considering our goals and the common ground between interlocutors; Nilsen & Graham, 2009;Ye & Zhou, 2009), allocate sufficient processing capacity to our speech planning processes (e.g., Cook & Meyer, 2008;Ferreira & Pashler, 2002;Roelofs, 2008aRoelofs, , 2008b, and monitor our speech output for appropriateness and correctness. We also need to choose and maintain an appropriate speech rate and register (e.g., child-directed speech or the formal style required for a sermon, see Meyer, Konopka, Wheeldon, & van der Meulen, 2012).…”