Early and Late Effects of Semantic Distractors on Electroencephalographic Responses During Overt Picture Naming

Abstract

This study investigated the nature of the interference effect of semantically related distractors in the picture-word interference paradigm, which has been claimed to be caused by either competition between lexical representations of target and distractor or by a late response exclusion mechanism that removes the distractor from a response buffer. EEG was recorded while participants overtly named pictures accompanied by categorically related versus unrelated written distractor words. In contrast to previous studies, stimuli were presented for only 250 ms to avoid any re-processing. ERP effects of relatedness were found around 290, 470, 540, and 660 ms post stimulus onset. In addition, related distractors led to an increase in midfrontal theta power, especially from about 440 to 540 ms, as well as to decreased high beta power between 40 and 110 ms and increased high beta power between 275 and 340 ms post stimulus onset. Response-locked analyses showed no differences in ERPs, however increased low and high beta power for related distractors in various time windows, most importantly a high beta power increase between −175 and −155 ms before speech onset. These results suggest that the semantic distractor effect is a combination of various effects and that the lexical competition account and the response exclusion account each capture a part, but not all aspects of the effect.

Behavioural and EEG evidence for inter-individual variability in late encoding stages of word production

“…A few studies have reported both stimulus-aligned and response-aligned analyses, as was done in the current study. For example, a study by Krott et al (2019) reports no difference in the response-locked analysis, but several clusters with differences in the stimulus-aligned ERPs, unlike in the present study. Wong et al (2017) similarly found differences in semantically related and unrelated conditions in stimulus-locked ERPs.…”

“…The first assumes that speakers differ in the time they need to perform specific encoding processes (e.g., Laganaro et al, 2012;Shao et al, 2012). The second assumes (albeit implicitly) that encoding processes are synchronous enough across speakers, such that the underlying processes can be targeted with time course measures, e.g., event-related potentials (ERPs, e.g., Bürki, 2017b;Krott et al, 2019;Rabovsky et al, 2020). The aim of this study is to determine where in the time course of word production these inter-individual differences in naming latencies (time to prepare the vocal response to name a picture of an object) emerge.…”

“…In order to produce the target word, the distractor word needs to be removed from this buffer, and the semantic interference effect arises because related distractors are more difficult to discard than unrelated ones (Mahon et al, 2007). A few authors provide evidence that the semantic interference effect could have two loci or show evidence that the effect is associated with both lexical selection and a post-lexical articulatory stage (Krott et al, 2019).…”

“…Response-aligned ERPs on the other hand are particularly appropriate to target processes that are aligned on the vocal response, and that reflect later encoding processes (e.g., Bürki et al, 2015;Lancheros et al, 2020;Laganaro et al, 2013). We therefore created both a stimulus-locked and response-locked data set for each participant (e.g., Krott et al, 2019;Laganaro et al, 2012;Wong et al, 2017). The stimulus locked data set was created by segmenting epochs from -200ms to 500ms before and after visual stimulus onset (distractor-picture pair, distractors were presented with a stimulus-onset asynchrony of 0ms).…”

Neural oscillations in the aging brain associated with interference control in word production

“…Both effects were interpreted as to reflect different degrees of effort, or top-down interference control, in resolving the competition among the competing stimuli. Similar mid-frontal theta power increases have also been observed in other language production studies, particularly in different conditions that require more control due to stimuli interfering with production processes (Krott, Medaglia, & Porcaro, 2019; Shitova et al, 2017; see Piai & Zheng, 2019 for a review on theta oscillation and cognitive control in language production). In the literature, midline frontal theta oscillations, generated by the anterior cingulate cortex and superior frontal gyrus, are associated with working-memory load (Itthipuripat et al, 2013; Jensen & Tesche, 2002), performance monitoring (Cavanagh et al, 2012; Cohen, 2011; Luu et al, 2004) and increased top-down control to prevent interference (Cohen et al, 2008; Cohen & Donner, 2013; Hanslmayr et al, 2008; Nigbur et al, 2011).…”