Automatic Semantic Processing in a Picture-Word Interference Task

Rosinski, Richard R.; Golinkoff, Roberta Michnick; Kukish, Karen S.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1975.tb03301.x

Cited by 56 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Three tasks – the Stroop task (Stroop, 1935), the picture-word interference task (Rosinski, Golinkoff, & Kukish, 1975), and a modified recent-negatives task (Hamilton & Martin, 2007) – were used to examine attentional control ability in the patients. The critical condition in these tasks induces interference (color word interfering with color ink naming, semantically related word distractors interfering with target picture naming, and semantically and phonological related list items interfering with recognition of probe items, respectively), thus requiring participants to focus attention on task-appropriate representations against distraction from task-inappropriate representations for correct performance.…”

Section: Experiments 1: Attentional Control In Patients With and Withomentioning

confidence: 99%

LIFG-based attentional control and the resolution of lexical ambiguities in sentence context

Vuong

Martin

2011

Brain and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe role of attentional control in lexical ambiguity resolution was examined in two patients with damage to the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) and one control patient with non-LIFG damage. Experiment 1 confirmed that the LIFG patients had attentional control deficits compared to normal controls while the non-LIFG patient was relatively unimpaired. Experiment 2 showed that all three patients did as well as normal controls in using biasing sentence context to resolve lexical ambiguities involving balanced ambiguous words, but only the LIFG patients took an abnormally long time on lexical ambiguities that resolved toward a subordinate meaning of biased ambiguous words. Taken together, the results suggest that attentional control plays an important role in the resolution of certain lexical ambiguities -those that induce strong interference from context-inappropriate meanings (i.e., dominant meanings of biased ambiguous words).

show abstract

Section: Experiments 1: Attentional Control In Patients With and Withomentioning

confidence: 99%

LIFG-based attentional control and the resolution of lexical ambiguities in sentence context

Vuong

Martin

2011

Brain and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Naming is slowed if the competitor is semantically (categorically) related to the picture (e.g., cat – RABBIT)1 than if the competitor word is unrelated to the picture (e.g., pencil – RABBIT). This effect is known as the semantic interference effect, or SIE (Lupker, 1979; Rosinski, 1977; Rosinski, Golinkoff, & Kukish, 1975; Smith & Magee, 1980; Underwood, 1976). Conversely, naming is facilitated if the competitor is phonologically/orthographically related (e.g., radish – RABBIT) relative to when there is no relationship between the competitor word and picture name (e.g., pencil – RABBIT).…”

Section: The Visual Picture–word Interference Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of the picture–word interference paradigm to examine naming abilities in aphasic individuals

Hashimoto

Thompson

2009

Aphasiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Although naming deficits are well documented in aphasia, on-line measures of naming processes have been little investigated. The use of on-line measures may offer further insight into the nature of aphasic naming deficits that would otherwise be difficult to interpret when using off-line measures. Aims The temporal activation of semantic and phonological processes was tracked in older normal control and aphasic individuals using a picture–word interference paradigm. The purpose of the study was to examine how word interference results can augment and/or corroborate standard language testing in the aphasic group, as well as to examine temporal patterns of activation in the aphasic group when compared to a normal control group. Methods & Procedures A total of 20 older normal individuals and 11 aphasic individuals participated. Detailed measures of each aphasic individual's language and naming skills were obtained. A visual picture–word interference paradigm was used in which the words bore either a semantic, phonological, or no relationship to 25 pictures. These competitor words were presented at stimulus onset asynchronies of −300 ms, +300 ms, and 0 ms. Outcomes & Results Analyses of naming RTs in both groups revealed significant early semantic interference effects, mid-semantic interference effects, and mid-phonological facilitation effects. A matched control-aphasic group comparison revealed no differences in the temporal activation of effects during the course of naming. Partial support for this RT pattern was found in the aphasic naming error pattern. The aphasic group also demonstrated greater SIEs and PFEs compared to the matched control group, which indicated disruptions of the phonological processing stage. Analyses of behavioural performances of the aphasic group corroborated this finding. Conclusions The aphasic naming RTs results were unexpected given the results from the priming literature, which has supported the idea of slowed or reduced patterns of activation in aphasic individuals. However, analyses of naming RTs also confirmed the behavioural finding of a disruption surrounding phonological processes; thus, the analyses of naming latencies offers another potential means of pinpointing breakdowns of lexical access in individuals with aphasia.

show abstract

“…When presented with a context word that is identical to a target picture name (“cat” – <picture of a cat>), participants are typically able to name the picture faster than when the context word is unrelated to it (Glaser & Dungelhoff, 1984; Rosinski, 1977; Rosinski, Golinkoff, & Kukish, 1975; Smith & Magee, 1980). This behavioral facilitation effect is robust and is seen at a variety of Stimulus Onset Asynchronies (SOAs) (Biggs & Marmurek, 1990), and even when other items intervene between the context word and target picture (Durso & Johnson, 1979).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A funny thing happened on the way to articulation: N400 attenuation despite behavioral interference in picture naming

Blackford

Holcomb

Grainger³

et al. 2012

Cognition

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We measured Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) and naming times to picture targets preceded by masked words (stimulus onset asynchrony: 80 ms) that shared one of three different types of relationship with the names of the pictures: (1) Identity related, in which the prime was the name of the picture (“socks” – ), (2) Phonemic Onset related, in which the initial segment of the prime was the same as the name of the picture (“log” – ), and (3) Semantically related in which the prime was a co–category exemplar and associated with the name of the picture (“cake” – ). Each type of related picture target was contrasted with an Unrelated picture target, resulting in a 3 × 2 design that crossed Relationship Type between the word and the target picture (Identity, Phonemic Onset and Semantic) with Relatedness (Related and Unrelated). Modulation of the N400 component to related (versus unrelated) pictures was taken to reflect semantic processing at the interface between the picture's conceptual features and its lemma, while naming times reflected the end product of all stages of processing. Both attenuation of the N400 and shorter naming times were observed to pictures preceded by Identity related (versus Unrelated) words. No ERP effects within 600 ms, but shorter naming times, were observed to pictures preceded by Phonemic Onset related (versus Unrelated) words. An attenuated N400 (electrophysiological semantic priming) but longer naming times (behavioral semantic interference) were observed to pictures preceded by Semantically related (versus Unrelated) words. These dissociations between ERP modulation and naming times suggest that (a) phonemic onset priming occurred late, during encoding of the articulatory response, and (b) semantic behavioral interference was not driven by competition at the lemma level of representation, but rather occurred at a later stage of production.

show abstract

Automatic Semantic Processing in a Picture-Word Interference Task

Cited by 56 publications

References 7 publications

LIFG-based attentional control and the resolution of lexical ambiguities in sentence context

LIFG-based attentional control and the resolution of lexical ambiguities in sentence context

The use of the picture–word interference paradigm to examine naming abilities in aphasic individuals

A funny thing happened on the way to articulation: N400 attenuation despite behavioral interference in picture naming

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About