Naming pictures and sounds: Stimulus type affects semantic context effects.

Wöhner, Stefan; Mädebach, Andreas; Jescheniak, Jörg D.

doi:10.1037/xhp0000908

Cited by 9 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Homogeneous and heterogeneous blocks alternated. Half of the participants started with a homogeneous block and half with a heterogeneous block (see also Wöhner et al, 2021).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is no prior evidence for semantic interference with subordinate-level names. Therefore, we calculated an estimate of the population effect size based on ten studies testing for semantic interference with basic-level names with young adults and with a design comparable to the one we used (Abdel Rahman & Melinger, 2007Belke, Brysbaert et al, 2005;Belke, Meyer & Damian, 2005;Damian et al, 2001;Damian & Als, 2005;Maess et al, 2002;Navarrete et al, 2012;Wang et al, 2018;Wöhner et al, 2021). The mean standardized effect across these studies was dz = 1.1, 95% CI [0.8; 1.3] in the participant analysis and dz = 0.8, 95% CI [0.6; 1.0] in the item analysis (for details of the calculation see https://osf.io/v9yt5/).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These sets either contain pictures from the same semantic category (homogeneous context) or from different semantic categories (heterogeneous context). In this task version, naming responses are slowed down in the homogeneous context relative to the heterogeneous context, typically from the second cycle onwards (e.g., Abdel Rahman & Melinger, 2007;Belke, Meyer & Damian, 2005;Damian et al, 2001;Damian & Als, 2005;Wöhner et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Adaptive Lexical Processing of Semantic Competitors Extends to Alternative Names: Evidence from Blocked-Cyclic Picture Naming

Wöhner¹,

Mädebach²,

Schriefers³

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When pictures are repeatedly named in the context of semantically related pictures (e.g., “sheep” in the context of “goat” and “horse” – homogeneous context) latencies are longer than when the pictures are repeatedly named in the context of unrelated pictures (e.g., “sheep” in the context of “table” and “hammer” – heterogeneous context). Adaptive models of word production attribute this semantic interference effect in blocked-cyclic naming (BCN) to an incremental learning mechanism which makes semantically related words that were activated but not selected less accessible for future retrieval. Recent results from a picture-word-interference (PWI) study, however, suggested that lexical alternatives (e.g., “bird” for “duck”), might be exempt from this mechanism (Kurtz et al., 2018). We tested whether converging evidence can be obtained in BCN. We embedded pictures named with basic-level category labels (e.g., “bird”) into contexts of pictures of specific exemplars named with subordinate-level labels (e.g., “duck”, “eagle”, “stork”). If lexical alternatives are generally exempt from incremental learning, interference in the homogeneous context should be found for subordinate-level targets but not for basic-level targets. Contrary to this prediction, interference was similar-sized. We discuss implications of these results for theories of incremental learning and the use of the PWI task in this context.

show abstract

“…Homogeneous and heterogeneous blocks alternated. Half of the participants started with a homogeneous block and half with a heterogeneous block (see also Wöhner et al, 2021).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adaptive Lexical Processing of Semantic Competitors Extends to Alternative Names: Evidence from Blocked-Cyclic Picture Naming

Wöhner¹,

Mädebach²,

Schriefers³

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These sets either contain pictures from the same semantic category (homogeneous context) or from different semantic categories (heterogeneous context). In this task, naming responses are slowed down in the homogeneous context, typically from the second cycle onwards (e.g., Abdel Rahman & Melinger, 2007;Belke et al, 2005;Damian & Als, 2005;Damian et al, 2001;Wöhner et al, 2021Wöhner et al, , 2023aWöhner et al, , 2023b. In current models of word production, these semantic interference effects are explained as the result of changes in the connection weights in the conceptual-lexical network.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Repeated naming affects the accessibility of nonselected words: Evidence from picture–word interference experiments.

Wöhner¹,

Mädebach²,

Schriefers³

et al. 2024

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study traced different types of distractor effects in the picture-word interference (PWI) task across repeated naming. Starting point was a PWI study by Kurtz et al. (2018). It reported that naming a picture (e.g., of a duck) was slowed down by a distractor word phonologically related to an alternative picture name from a different taxonomic level ("birch" related to "bird") when compared to an unrelated control, indicating that the alternative name was (phonologically) coactivated. Importantly, the effect was stable across repeated naming. The authors argued that this stability challenges adaptive models of word production according to which coactivated but nonselected words become less accessible for future retrieval; such a change in lexical accessibility should have been reflected in reduced interference. Using a similar experimental protocol as Kurtz et al., our study looked at the stability of different distractor effects in PWI. Interference from a distractor word phonologically related to an alternative name was stable across repeated naming, replicating Kurtz et al. In contrast, interference from a distractor word denoting a semantic category coordinate ("stork") was reduced across repeated naming. A similar pattern was found for a distractor word corresponding to an alternative name ("bird"). Facilitation from a distractor word phonologically related to the target name ("dust"), in contrast, was stable across repeated naming. We discuss the implications of these findings with respect to the issue of changes in the accessibility of lexical representations, the use of the PWI task in this context, and the use of this task in general.

show abstract

“…The rise of semantic interference in blocked-cyclic naming (BCN) studies has also been related to changes in the connection strength within the semantic-lexical network (e.g., Damian & Als, 2005; Feng et al, 2021; Oppenheim et al, 2010). It has been found that latencies are delayed when pictures are repeatedly named in a (homogeneous) context made up by pictures of semantically related (same category) objects as opposed to a (heterogeneous) context made up by pictures of semantically unrelated objects (e.g., Belke et al, 2005; Belke & Stielow, 2013; Damian & Als, 2005; Damian et al, 2001; Wöhner et al, 2021).…”

Section: Transparency and Opennessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive processing in word production: Evidence from picture–word interference studies.

Jescheniak,

Wöhner,

Schriefers

2024

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adaptive models of word production hold that lexical processing is shaped by recent production episodes. In particular, the models proposed by Howard et al. (2006) and Oppenheim et al. (2010) assume that the connection strength between semantic and lexical representations is updated continuously, on each use of a word. These changes make semantically related competitor words to a selected target word (e.g., "cherry" or "grape" for the target word "apple") less accessible for future retrieval. We put this assumption to a novel test in two picture-word interference experiments. The experiments looked at semantic interference (longer picture naming latencies in the presence of a semantically related distractor word compared to an unrelated distractor word; the effect is assumed to reflect the activation of competitor words to a target word) and its development across repeated naming. Across two times of measurement, semantically related distractor words (and their unrelated controls) were either identical (fixed target-distractor mapping, e.g., either distractor "cherry" or distractor "grape" for the target word "apple" at both times of measurement) or different (variable target-distractor mapping, e.g., distractor "cherry" at first time of measurement and distractor "grape" at second time of measurement or vice versa). Semantic interference was reduced at the second time of measurement, and this reduction was found with both fixed and variable target-distractor mapping. This generalization to new target-distractor combinations provides strong novel support for the notion of production-dependent changes in lexical accessibility as captured by adaptive models of word production.

show abstract

Naming pictures and sounds: Stimulus type affects semantic context effects.

Abstract: and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments and suggestions. The materials, data, and analysis scripts to reproduce the results presented in this article are openly available via the Open

Cited by 9 publications

References 46 publications

Adaptive Lexical Processing of Semantic Competitors Extends to Alternative Names: Evidence from Blocked-Cyclic Picture Naming

Adaptive Lexical Processing of Semantic Competitors Extends to Alternative Names: Evidence from Blocked-Cyclic Picture Naming

Repeated naming affects the accessibility of nonselected words: Evidence from picture–word interference experiments.

Adaptive processing in word production: Evidence from picture–word interference studies.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About