Inhibitory effects during object name retrieval: The effect of interval between prime and target on picture naming responses

Abstract

Three picture naming experiments are reported which examine the relationship between the apparent inhibition of a response on one trial, and naming latency on the subsequent trial. The design of each experiment involves the presentation of prime and target pairs, either presented in succession (Lag 1 condition), or separated by two intervening unrelated trials (Lag 3 condition). A control condition is also included. In Experiment 1, a speeded picture naming task is used, and naming errors are analysed. Target pictures are misnamed at above chance rates with the name of the semantically related prime picture in the Lag 3 condition. In contrast, these prime-related errors do not occur in the Lag 1 condition, suggesting a brief inhibitory effect. If primes are briefly inhibited, then target naming latencies immediately following a related prime should be quicker than target latencies in the Lag 3 condition. Experiment 2 confirms this pattern of results, using exactly the same stimuli and design, but standard naming instructions. Experiment 3 examines whether the inferred inhibition is the result of a self-inhibitory mechanism, using a repetition priming paradigm. If Lag 1 prime representations are self-inhibited, then facilitatory effects from prime/target repetition should be stronger in the Lag 3 condition, than in the Lag 1 condition. The data from Expt 3 were not consistent with this prediction. Taken together, the results of the three experiments suggest that a brief inhibitory effect occurs after retrieval of an object name, and that the inhibition may be accomplished by mechanisms other than self-inhibition.

Auditory context effects in picture naming investigated with event-related fMRI

“…In the latter, inhibition would likely act to further reduce activity as soon as the end word-form information began to mismatch that of the target representation. Lateral inhibition is also considered capable of producing a brief state of suppressed responsiveness in the production system after selection has occurred (e.g., Vitkovitch et al, 2001). Thus, this account has the distinct advantage of proposing a common mechanism contributing to the BOLD signal reductions observed across the experimental conditions.…”

“…Another account is needed for the semantically related condition. One possibility is that the reduced signal observed for this distractor condition might reflect diminished selection demands due to lateral inhibition of competing representations (see Vitkovitch et al, 2001). 4…”

“…Since the presentation of distractor words produces an interference effect when naming a target picture, we expected the distractor conditions to elicit increased activation in the mid-to-posterior temporal MTG and STG and in the ACC relative to naming in isolation. O'Seaghdha, 1991) and/or the activation of possible competitors, resulting in a temporary state of reduced responsiveness (e.g., Berg & Schade, 1992; see also Vitkovitch, Rutter, & Read, 2001).…”

Semantic priming over unrelated trials: Evidence for different effects in word and picture naming

“…The Lag 3 interval was chosen because semantic interference had been clearly demonstrated with this interval by Wheeldon and Monsell (1994;definition primes, picture targets), by Vitkovitch, Rutter, and Read (2001; picture primes, picture targets), and recently by Tree and Hirsh (2003;word primes, picture targets). By contrast, when two related stimuli are presented successively with an interval of about 4 sec (we refer to this as Lag 1), the interference effects are not always apparent (Vitkovitch et al, 2001;Wheeldon & Monsell, 1994).…”

Semantic Context and Visual Feature Effects in Object Naming: An fMRI Study using Arterial Spin Labeling

“…Two of these emphasize activation changes occurring at a processing level involving retrieval of lexico-semantic information. For example, increased naming latencies could be due to suppression of activation of a target word's representations following naming of a recently used, semantically related target (an inhibition account; Vitkovitch, Rutter, & Read, 2001;McCarthy & Kartsounis, 2000). Alternatively, coactivation of lexical representations of semantically related items may occur, thus increasing competition between a number of possible Figure 1.…”