Lexical selection is not by competition: A reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm.

Abstract

The dominant view in the field of lexical access in speech production maintains that selection of a word becomes more difficult as the levels of activation of nontarget words increase--selection by competition. The authors tested this prediction in two sets of experiments. First, the authors show that participants are faster to name pictures of objects (e.g., "bed") in the context of semantically related verb distractors (e.g., sleep) compared with unrelated verb distractors (e.g., shoot). In the second set of experiments, the authors show that target naming latencies (e.g., "horse") are, if anything, faster for within--category semantically close distractor words (e.g., zebra) than for within--category semantically far distractor words (e.g., whale). In the context of previous research, these data ground a new empirical generalization: As distractor words become semantically closer to the target concepts--all else being equal--target naming is facilitated. This fact means that lexical selection does not involve competition, and consequently, that the semantic interference effect does not reflect a lexical level process. This conclusion has important implications for models of lexical access and interpretations of Stroop-like interference effects.

Electrophysiological evidence that inhibition supports lexical selection in picture naming

“…This in turn fits well with models of word production that assume that lexical selection is a competitive process (e.g., Levelt et al, 1999;Piai et al, 2014;Roelofs, 1992Roelofs, , 2003. By contrast, models that do not view lexical selection as a competitive process would not predict the engagement of inhibition during lexical selection, though inhibition may be involved at a later stage shortly before articulation (e.g., Finkbeiner and Caramazza, 2006;Mahon et al, 2007).…”

“…Several models of lexical access propose that the process of lexical selection is competitive, such that the selection of a target is hindered by coactivation of competitors (e.g., Abdel Rahman and Melinger, 2009;Bloem and La Heij, 2003;Howard et al, 2006;Levelt et al, 1999;Piai et al, 2014;Roelofs, 1992Roelofs, , 2003Starreveld and La Heij, 1996). In other models, lexical selection is not seen to be a competitive process: A target is selected as soon as it has reached a threshold of activation regardless of the activation levels of other lexical items (see Finkbeiner and Caramazza, 2006;Mahon et al, 2007).…”

Motivation and semantic context affect brain error-monitoring activity: An event-related brain potentials study

“…This semantic interference can be accounted for by competition between coactivated lexical entries in the same semantic context. This competition, in turn, affects selection latencies (for a review, see Levelt et al, 1999; but for an alternative view, see Finkbeiner et al, 2006, as well as Mahon et al, 2007). Co-activation of multiple lexical entries may lead to multiple potential responses active at the same time and therefore increased conflict present at the time of response.…”

Distinct loci of lexical and semantic access deficits in aphasia: Evidence from voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping and diffusion tensor imaging

“…Janssen, Carreiras, & Barber, 2011;Mahon, Costa, Peterson, Vargas, & Caramazza, 2007) which then delays naming and creates more errors. In contrast, theories of language comprehension assume that semantic interference occurs when accessing the semantic system (Forde & Humphreys, 1995Warrington & Cipolotti, 1996) due to co-activation of shared semantic features that makes distinguishing the target amongst related non-target representations more difficult.…”