Language and cognition: Effects of stimulus codability, name-word frequency, and age of acquisition on lexical reaction time

Lachman, Roy; Shaffer, Juliet Popper; Hennrikus, Deborah J.

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(74)80049-6

Cited by 175 publications

(144 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

125

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The fact that many Hom-LF items had near-synonyms could by itself slow down the naming of those Hom-LF pictures, compared to Hom-HF pictures. Several studies showed that objects with low name agreement take longer to name than objects with high name agreement (Lachman, 1973;Lachman, Shaffer, & Hennrikus, 1974;Vitkovitch & Tyrell, 1995). In the case of the Hom-LF items, the situation is more extreme because the Hom-LF names had more dominant counterparts (e.g., slot in the meaning of ''castle'' has a higher frequency counterpart kasteel with a very similar meaning).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The word frequency effect in picture naming: Contrasting two hypotheses using homonym pictures

Shatzman

Schiller

2004

Brain and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Models of speech production disagree on whether or not homonyms have a shared word-form representation. To investigate this issue, a picture-naming experiment was carried out using Dutch homonyms of which both meanings could be presented as a picture. Naming latencies for the low-frequency meanings of homonyms were slower than for those of the high-frequency meanings. However, no frequency effect was found for control words, which matched the frequency of the homonymsÕ meanings. Subsequent control experiments indicated that the difference in naming latencies for the homonyms could be attributed to processes earlier than wordform retrieval. Specifically, it appears that low name agreement slowed down the naming of the low-frequency homonym pictures.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The word frequency effect in picture naming: Contrasting two hypotheses using homonym pictures

Shatzman

Schiller

2004

Brain and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies on speech production identified some of the most important predictors of naming performance (e.g., Alario et al, 2004;Barry et al, 1997;Cycowicz et al, 1997;Ellis & Morrison, 1998;Lachman et al, 1974;Severens et al, 2005;Snodgrass & Yuditsky, 1996;Vitkovitch & Tyrrell, 1995). Based on these studies, we included several influential predictors such as name agreement, lexical frequency and age of acquisition to investigate whether PhND would impact speech performance beyond the effects of these variables.…”

Section: Predictor Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconciling phonological neighborhood effects in speech production through single trial analysis

Sadat

Martin

Costa

et al. 2014

Cognitive Psychology

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A crucial step for understanding how lexical knowledge is represented is to describe the relative similarity of lexical items, and how it influences language processing. Previous studies of the effects of form similarity on word production have reported conflicting results, notably within and across languages. The aim of the present study was to clarify this empirical issue to provide specific constraints for theoretical models of language production. We investigated the role of phonological neighborhood density in a large-scale picture naming experiment using finegrained statistical models. The results showed that increasing phonological neighborhood density has a detrimental effect on naming latencies, and re-analyses of independently obtained data sets provide supplementary evidence for this effect. Finally, we reviewed a large body of evidence concerning phonological neighborhood density effects in word production, and discussed the occurrence of facilitatory and inhibitory effects in accuracy measures. The overall pattern shows that phonological neighborhood generates two opposite forces, one facilitatory and one inhibitory. In cases where speech production is disrupted (e.g. certain aphasic symptoms), the facilitatory component may emerge, but inhibitory processes dominate in efficient naming by healthy speakers. These findings are difficult to accommodate in terms of monitoring processes, but can be explained within interactive activation accounts combining phonological facilitation and lexical competition. 2Reconciling phonological neighborhood effects in speech production through single trial analysis Native speakers of a language know a myriad of different words. This so-called mental lexicon is often described as an interconnected network in which representation distance may depend on meaning or form similarities among the words. One crucial step for understanding this network is to describe which kind of similarity influences language processing and how it modulates performance. In this context, the current research is concerned with the role of phonological similarity in word retrieval and speech production. This issue has been addressed in earlier theoretical work (e.g. Chen & Mirman, 2012;Dell & Gordon, 2003), but the empirical evidence on which this work is grounded remains controversial. Our goal in this article is to clarify the empirical facts regarding form similarity effects in speech production, and to integrate them within a single account. Clearing the empirical constraints will allow further refinement of theoretical models to advance our understanding of the cognitive processes underlying speech production.An approximation of how similar or interconnected a word is within the lexical network can be obtained by computing its phonological neighborhood density (PhND). PhND refers to the number of words that can be formed from a given word by substituting, adding or deleting one phoneme (Luce, 1986). For example, the word "bat" sounds similar to many other words (e.g., "cat", "fat",...

show abstract

“…During lexical selection, speakers have to select one of the activated lemmas. NA has consistently been shown to affect object and action naming above and beyond variables such as frequency and age of acquisition (e.g., Alario and Ferrand, 1999;Barry et al, 1997;Lachman et al, 1974;Snodgrass and Yuditsky, 1996;Shao et al, 2014;Vitkovitch and Tyrrell, 1995): Pictures that elicit many different names (i.e., have low NA) are named more slowly than pictures with a single dominant name (i.e., have high NA).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrophysiological evidence that inhibition supports lexical selection in picture naming

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inhibition N2Picture naming a b s t r a c tWe investigated the neural basis of inhibitory control during lexical selection. Participants overtly named pictures while response times (RTs) and event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded. The difficulty of lexical selection was manipulated by using object and action pictures with high name agreement (few response candidates) versus low name agreement (many response candidates). To assess the involvement of inhibition, we conducted delta plot analyses of naming RTs and examined the N2 component of the ERP. We found longer mean naming RTs and a larger N2 amplitude in the low relative to the high name agreement condition. For action naming we found a negative correlation between the slopes of the slowest delta segment and the difference in N2 amplitude between the low and high name agreement conditions. The converging behavioral and electrophysiological evidence suggests that selective inhibition is engaged to reduce competition during lexical selection in picture naming.

show abstract

Language and cognition: Effects of stimulus codability, name-word frequency, and age of acquisition on lexical reaction time

Cited by 175 publications

References 10 publications

The word frequency effect in picture naming: Contrasting two hypotheses using homonym pictures

The word frequency effect in picture naming: Contrasting two hypotheses using homonym pictures

Reconciling phonological neighborhood effects in speech production through single trial analysis

Electrophysiological evidence that inhibition supports lexical selection in picture naming

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About