2012
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-012-0269-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reading aloud: The cumulative lexical interference effect

Abstract: Picture naming shows a cumulative semantic interference effect: Latency for naming a target picture increases as a function of the number of pictures semantically similar to the target that have previously been named (Howard, Nickels, Coltheart, & Cole-Virtue, Cognition 100:464-482, 2006). Howard and colleagues, and also Oppenheim, Dell, and Schwartz (Cognition 114:227-252, 2010), argued that this occurs because of the joint presence in the picture-naming system of three critical properties: shared activatio… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Across theoretical frameworks, one of the core principle of how word processing works is the graded, parallel activation of non-target words because they are either related in meaning (e.g., Rogers and McClelland, 2004) or similar in form (e.g., Mulatti et al, 2012Mulatti et al, , 2006 to the target stimulus. If multiple, non-target representations are simultaneously activated, then, in order to prevent selection errors, there ought to be a mechanism that impedes the processing of these multiple representations and favours the processing of the target word.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Across theoretical frameworks, one of the core principle of how word processing works is the graded, parallel activation of non-target words because they are either related in meaning (e.g., Rogers and McClelland, 2004) or similar in form (e.g., Mulatti et al, 2012Mulatti et al, , 2006 to the target stimulus. If multiple, non-target representations are simultaneously activated, then, in order to prevent selection errors, there ought to be a mechanism that impedes the processing of these multiple representations and favours the processing of the target word.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Picture naming reaction times (RTs; i.e., the interval between the onset of the target stimulus and the onset of the verbal response) increased linearly as a function of the number of previously named pictures in that category. This is a cumulative semantic interference effect (see also, Mulatti et al, 2012). Noteworthy, the number of items intervening between two exemplars of the same category does not modulate the effect.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Some studies have suggested that such deficits can be limited to particular modalities or semantic categories (e.g., Crutch & Warrington, 2001; McCarthy & Kartsounis, 2000; McNeil et al, 1994), but accounts tend to be framed in terms of general processing dynamics (excessive activation and inhibition) and with a particular focus on semantic processing despite evidence that such effects occur in other domains (e.g., Mulatti et al, 2012). Studies of perseveration errors have made important discoveries by examining how individual participants' perseveration errors relate to their broader deficit pattern (e.g., Cohen & Dehaene, 1998; Fischer-Baum & Rapp, 2012; Martin & Dell, 2007).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…see Kittredge et al 2008 and references therein). As one example of incremental learning applied to this stage of processing, Mulatti and colleagues (2012) found increased response latencies for production of words that overlapped in rhyme with previously produced words. However, this was demonstrated in reading in an orthographically transparent language (Italian), and the observed interference may arise in non-lexical grapheme-to-phoneme mapping.…”
Section: Interference and Facilitation In Lexical Selection And Segmementioning
confidence: 99%