Locus of semantic interference in picture naming: Evidence from dual-task performance.

Abstract

Disagreement exists regarding the functional locus of semantic interference of distractor words in picture naming. This effect is a cornerstone of modern psycholinguistic models of word production, which assume that it arises in lexical response-selection. However, recent evidence from studies of dual-task performance suggests a locus in perceptual or conceptual processing, prior to lexical response-selection. In these studies, participants manually responded to a tone and named a picture while ignoring a written distractor word. The stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between tone and picture-word stimulus was manipulated. Semantic interference in naming latencies was present at long tone pre-exposure SOAs, but reduced or absent at short SOAs. Under the prevailing structural or strategic response-selection bottleneck and central capacity sharing models of dual-task performance, the underadditivity of the effects of SOA and stimulus type suggests that semantic interference emerges before lexical response-selection. However, in more recent studies, additive effects of SOA and stimulus type were obtained. Here, we examined the discrepancy in results between these studies in 6 experiments in which we systematically manipulated various dimensions on which these earlier studies differed, including tasks, materials, stimulus types, and SOAs. In all our experiments, additive effects of SOA and stimulus type on naming latencies were obtained. These results strongly suggest that the semantic interference effect arises after perceptual and conceptual processing, during lexical response-selection or later. We discuss several theoretical alternatives with respect to their potential to account for the discrepancy between the present results and other studies showing underadditivity. Keywords: dual-task performance, picture-word interference, response-selection bottleneck, semantic interference, Stroop An important question in the psychology of language concerns how speakers select from memory the words that they want to produce. This ability, called lexical selection, is a topic of much research in the field of word production. One way of studying lexical selection consists of presenting participants with pictured objects paired with superimposed distractor words, a paradigm called picture-word interference (PWI; see Abdel Rahman & Melinger, 2009;Glaser, 1992;Roelofs, 2007, for reviews). Participants are instructed to name the pictures and to ignore the distractors. The relation the distractor word bears with the picture name (e.g., semantic, phonological, etc.) is manipulated and effects obtained are thought to inform researchers about processes involved in word production.One specific effect has long been assumed to provide evidence about the nature of lexical selection: semantic interference (e.g., Damian & Martin, 1999;Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999;Roelofs, 1992;Schriefers, Meyer, & Levelt, 1990;Starreveld & La Heij, 1996). This effect concerns the finding that response times (RTs) are longer for picture naming when the dis...

Working memory capacity and dual-task interference in picture naming

“…That is, the magnitude of the semantic interference effect should not differ between short and long SOAs. This is what Schnur and Martin (2012) and Piai et al (2013a) observed. The utility of the active scheduling account of dual-task performance was demonstrated in computer simulations with the WEAVER++ model of word planning (e.g., Levelt et al, 1999;Roelofs, 1992Roelofs, , 2003 extended by assumptions about active scheduling from Kieras (1997a, 1997b).…”

“…Given our earlier results (Piai et al, 2013a), we expected not only to find the Stroop-like effect to be additive with SOA (replicating Fagot and Pashler), but also to obtain additive effects of semantic relatedness and SOA (replicating our earlier findings and those of Schnur & Martin, 2012).…”

“…It is unclear why the magnitude of the semantic interference effect was somewhat larger at the short than at the long SOA in the present experiment. In a series of six experiments in our lab (including experiments using the same materials as the present experiment), the magnitude of the semantic interference and Strooplike effects did not differ between short and long SOAs (Piai et al, 2013a). This corresponds to two experiments in another lab (using different materials but a procedure similar to the one used in the present study), in which the semantic interference effect was also additive with the SOA effect (Schnur & Martin, 2012).…”

“…Previous studies observed that the semantic interference effect was smaller at short than at long SOAs (Ayora et al, 2011;Dell'Acqua et al, 2007), or equally large at short and long SOAs (Piai et al, 2013a;Schnur & Martin, 2012). Van Maanen et al (2012) observed that semantic interference decreased with decreasing SOA in one experiment, but not in another.…”

“…Pashler & Johnston, 1989). Second, picture naming RTs are longer than tone discrimination RTs, and more so at short than at long SOAs (e.g., Dell'Acqua et al, 2007;Piai et al, 2013a;Schnur & Martin, 2012). We refer to the difference between RT2 and RT1 (at each SOA) as the task-difference effect.…”