Now you see it … and now again: Semantic interference reflects lexical competition in speech production with and without articulation

Abstract

Semantic interference effects in the picture-word interference (PWI) paradigm have long been assumed to reflect competitive mechanisms during lexical selection, a core component of the speech production system. However, recent observations of facilitative effects have cast doubt on the usefulness of the paradigm for investigating lexicalization, and on the existence of lexical competition in general. An alternative proposal suggests that lexical selection is not by competition, and that interference effects reflect articulatory processes outside the lexical system. Here, we contrast these theoretical alternatives with semantic distractor effects in the PWI paradigm. In two tasks, pictures were either overtly named or the names were manually classified. Interference effects of comparable magnitude were observed in both response modalities, regardless of whether the names were articulated or not. This finding supports lexical competition models and suggests that the articulators are not the source of interference in the PWI paradigm. Supplemental materials for this article may be downloaded from http://pbr.psychonomic-journals.org/content/supplemental.

Relative speed of processing affects interference in Stroop and picture–word interference paradigms: evidence from the distractor frequency effect

“…Low-frequency words arrive in the buffer later than high-frequency words and, hence, are excluded from the buffer later, leading to slower picture-naming times in the context of low-vs. highfrequency distractor words. Without any further assumptions, this explanation of the distractor frequency effect in the PWI task also predicts that distractor frequency should also affect colour-naming latencies in the Stroop task [for further discussion on the Response Exclusion Hypothesis and the competition hypothesis (e.g., WEAVER + + ), see Abdel Rahman & Aristei, 2010;Janssen, 2013;Mädebach, Oppermann, Hantsch, Curda, & Jescheniak, 2011;Mulatti & Coltheart, 2012;Navarrete & Mahon, 2012;Roelofs, Piai, & Schriefers, 2012].…”

Bilingual Picture–Word Studies Constrain Theories of Lexical Selection

“…These and other challenges to selection by competition have motivated the resuscitation of non-competitive models of lexical selection. Although these results have not been universally accepted (Vigliocco et al, 2004; Rahman and Melinger, 2009; Hutson et al, 2010; Lee and de Zubicaray, 2010; Rahman and Aristei, 2010; Spalek et al, 2010; Janssen et al, 2011; Mädebach et al, 2011; Roelofs et al, 2011; Starreveld et al, in press), they have inspired a revival of interest in non-competitive theories of selection. Any non-competitive theory will eventually have to account for reaction time results in picture–word interference studies.…”

“…Another challenge for the REH is that semantic interference effects have been observed even without overt naming, in paradigms such as syllable decisions and phoneme monitoring (Hutson et al, 2010) and picture–word interference (Rahman and Aristei, 2010). Finally, neither Aristei et al (2011) nor Janssen et al (2011) found the expected ERP signature of response selection.…”

Selection of freestanding and bound gender-marking morphemes in speech production: a review

“…For open-class elements, selection by competition has been, for a long time, viewed as the basic mechanism (but see Finkbeiner & Caramazza, 2006;Janssen, Schirm, Mahon, & Caramazza, 2008;Mahon, Costa, Peterson, Vargas, & Caramazza, 2007, for an alternative account, and Abdel Rahman & Aristei, 2010;Mädebach, Oppermann, Hantsch, Curda, & Jescheniak, 2011;, for evidence against this alternative account). Thus, selection by competition can be viewed as the underlying unifying mechanism for both closedclass and open-class element selection in language production.…”