Does segmental overlap help or hurt? Evidence from blocked cyclic naming in spoken and written production

Abstract

Past research has demonstrated interference effects when words are named in the context of multiple items that share meaning. This interference has been explained within various incremental learning accounts of word production, which propose that each attempt of mapping semantic features to lexical items induces slight but persistent changes that result in cumulative interference. We examined if similar interference-generating mechanisms operate during the mapping of lexical items to segments by examining the production of words in the context of others that share segments. Previous research has shown that initial segment overlap amongst a set of target words produces facilitation, not interference. However, this initial-segment facilitation is likely due to strategic preparation, an external factor that may mask underlying interference. In the present study, we applied a novel manipulation in which segmental overlap across target items was distributed unpredictably across word positions in order to reduce strategic response preparation. This manipulation led to interference in both spoken (Experiment 1) and written (Experiment 2) production. We suggest that these findings are consistent with a competitive learning mechanism that applies across stages and modalities of word production.

Neural correlates of spoken word production in semantic and phonological blocked cyclic naming

“…The topographic distribution for the phonological effects is similar to that for the semantic effects. As explained in the Introduction, if incremental learning had underlied phonological encoding (Breining et al, 2016), a stronger negative effect between 275 and 355 ms would have been observed in the phonologically homogeneous blocks relative to the heterogeneous blocks. However, the present study yielded attenuated negative effects around 400 ms after picture presentation for the phonologically homogeneous condition, contrary to the prediction of the incremental learning account.…”

“…If the phonological facilitation effect reflects facilitation at the phonological form encoding stage, we expect to observe ERP differences between phonologically homogeneous and heterogeneous blocks at around 355-400 ms after picture presentation (calculated based on a meta-analysis of the neural correlates of phonological code retrieval and syllabification stages; see Indefrey, 2011 for details). Alternatively, if the incremental learning mechanism underlies phonological encoding and the effect takes place at the stage of lexical-segmental mapping (as proposed by Breining et al, 2016), we expect a stronger negative effect between 275 and 355 ms in the phonologically homogeneous blocks relative to the heterogeneous blocks, based on the predictions of the meta-analysis studies (Indefrey, 2011;Indefrey & Levelt, 2004).…”

“…coat, cat, cook), naming is facilitated compared to a heterogeneous block, suggesting either facilitation at the word-form encoding stage during speech production or strategic preparation due to high predictability (e.g. Breining, Nozari, & Rapp, 2016;Damian, 2003;Meyer, 1991;Roelofs, 1999;Schnur et al, 2009). However, inhibitory effects have also been observed when the position of the overlapping segment is not the onset (Breining et al, 2016).…”

“…Specifically, both the inhibitory phonological effect and the inhibitory semantic blocking effect are "similarity-based" and the interference arises due to the distributed semantic or segmental feature overlap during repeated retrieval. In other words, the incremental learning mechanism accounts for the phonological effect in a similar way to the semantic blocking effect in the blocked cyclic naming paradigm (Breining et al, 2016).…”

“…Breining, Nozari, & Rapp, 2016;Damian, 2003;Meyer, 1991;Roelofs, 1999;Schnur et al, 2009). However, inhibitory effects have also been observed when the position of the overlapping segment is not the onset (Breining et al, 2016). Breining and colleagues (2016) suggest a common mechanism responsible for the semantic blocking effect as well as phonological effect.…”