Picture-word interference in language production studies: Exploring the roles of attention and processing times.

Bürki, Audrey; Madec, Sylvain

doi:10.1037/xlm0001098

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whereas the sample for the lab experiment mostly consisted of undergraduate students with backgrounds in linguistics or psychology, the background of participants in the on-line study was more diverse. The two populations might differ in the strategies they used to perform the task, in the extent to which they noticed the similarities between distractors and target words, in their ability to ignore the distractor, or in the relative speed with which they processed the two words (Bürki et al, 2019;Bürki & Madec, 2022). It is important to note, however, that this nding cannot be generalized to other paradigms or effects without further investigation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The rst dataset was collected in the lab and is published in Bürki and Madec (2022). The paradigm is a classical picture-word interference task.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies have shown that semantically related distractors lead to slower speech onset latencies than unrelated distractors (Lupker, 1979;Rosinski, 1977; see also Vogt et al, 2021 for the demonstration that the effect can be replicated on-line) and that phonologically related distractors facilitate naming compared to unrelated distractors (Posnansky & Rayner, 1977;Rayner & Posnansky, 1978 for early demonstrations of this phonological facilitation effect). Both effects have been replicated numerous times in the lab and were replicated in Bürki and Madec (2022). The second dataset was collected on-line for the present study with the sole purpose of replicating the lab experiment.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessing effect sizes, variability, and power in the web-based study of language production

Bürki,

Vasishth

2024

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the pandemic, many experimental psychologists/linguists have started to collect data over the internet (hereafter “on-line data”). The feasibility of such experiments and the sample sizes required to achieve sufficient statistical power in future experiments have to be assessed. This in turn requires information on effect sizes and variability. We present a series of analyses to compare repeated measurement data across settings. We apply these analyses to response time from the same word production experiment conducted in the lab and on-line. These analyses allow determining whether the two settings differ in effect sizes, in the consistency of responses over the course of the experiment, in the variability of average response times across participants, in the magnitude of effect sizes across participants, or in the amount of unexplained variability. We assess the impact of these differences on the power of the design in a series of simulations. Our findings temper the enthusiasm raised by previous studies and suggest that on-line production studies might be feasible but at a non-negligible cost. The sample sizes required to achieve sufficient power in on-line language production studies come with a non-negligible increase in the amount of manual labour. Findings further show that researchers cannot simply assume that effect sizes are similar across settings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The rst dataset was collected in the lab and is published in Bürki and Madec (2022). The paradigm is a classical picture-word interference task.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing effect sizes, variability, and power in the web-based study of language production

Bürki,

Vasishth

2024

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We checked for availability of the full text of all the studies. When we lacked the permission to access the full text online, authors were contacted mainly through ResearchGate (e.g., Bürki and Madec, 2022). We could not find or obtain upon request the full text of one of the studies (Collina et al, 2014).…”

Section: Systematic Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

A cautionary note on the studies using the picture-word interference paradigm: the unwelcome consequences of the random use of “in/animates”

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The picture-word interference (PWI) paradigm allows us to delve into the process of lexical access in language production with great precision. It creates situations of interference between target pictures and superimposed distractor words that participants must consciously ignore to name the pictures. Yet, although the PWI paradigm has offered numerous insights at all levels of lexical representation, in this work we expose an extended lack of control regarding the variable animacy. Animacy has been shown to have a great impact on cognition, especially when it comes to the mechanisms of attention, which are highly biased toward animate entities to the detriment of inanimate objects. Furthermore, animate nouns have been shown to be semantically richer and prioritized during lexical access, with effects observable in multiple psycholinguistic tasks. Indeed, not only does the performance on a PWI task directly depend on the different stages of lexical access to nouns, but also attention has a fundamental role in it, as participants must focus on targets and ignore interfering distractors. We conducted a systematic review with the terms “picture-word interference paradigm” and “animacy” in the databases PsycInfo and Psychology Database. The search revealed that only 12 from a total of 193 PWI studies controlled for animacy, and only one considered it as a factor in the design. The remaining studies included animate and inanimate stimuli in their materials randomly, sometimes in a very disproportionate amount across conditions. We speculate about the possible impact of this uncontrolled variable mixing on many types of effects within the framework of multiple theories, namely the Animate Monitoring Hypothesis, the WEAVER++ model, and the Independent Network Model in an attempt to fuel the theoretical debate on this issue as well as the empirical research to turn speculations into knowledge.

show abstract

“… 2 The same reasoning applies for the semantic interference effect, as this effect also depends on the timing of the presentation of target and distractor words (e.g., Schriefers et al, 1990). Importantly, however, whether an interaction between the semantic (or phonological) effect and distractor frequency is observed will depend on the participants’ processing times for target and distractor words in the experiment (see Bürki & Madec, 2022). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

When words collide: Bayesian meta-analyses of distractor and target properties in the picture–word interference paradigm

Bürki

Alario

Vasishth

2022

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the picture-word interference paradigm, participants name pictures while ignoring a written or spoken distractor word. Naming times to the pictures are slowed down by the presence of the distractor word. The present study investigates in detail the impact of distractor and target word properties on picture naming times, building on the seminal study by Miozzo and Caramazza (2003) “When more is less: A counterintuitive effect of distractor frequency in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General.” We report the results of several Bayesian meta-analyses, based on 26 datasets. These analyses provide estimates of effect sizes and their precision for several variables and their interactions. They show the reliability of the distractor frequency effect on picture naming latencies (latencies decrease as the frequency of the distractor increases) and demonstrate for the first time the impact of distractor length, with longer naming latencies for trials with longer distractors. Moreover, distractor frequency interacts with target word frequency to predict picture naming latencies. The methodological and theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

Picture-word interference in language production studies: Exploring the roles of attention and processing times.

Cited by 5 publications

References 83 publications

Assessing effect sizes, variability, and power in the web-based study of language production

Assessing effect sizes, variability, and power in the web-based study of language production

A cautionary note on the studies using the picture-word interference paradigm: the unwelcome consequences of the random use of “in/animates”

When words collide: Bayesian meta-analyses of distractor and target properties in the picture–word interference paradigm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About