Semantic picture–word interference is a postperceptual effect

Abstract

Naming a picture is slower while ignoring a semantically related versus an unrelated distractor word (semantic picture-word interference, or PWI). To locate the PWI effect in the word production processing stream (during perceptual encoding, response selection, or afterward), we used the psychological refractory period paradigm, in which participants identified a tone and then, at varying SOAs, named a picture while ignoring a semantically related or unrelated word (following Dell 'Acqua, Job, Peressotti, & Pascali, 2007). As in results from the Stroop paradigm (Fagot & Pashler, 1992), we found equivalent PWI effects at short and long SOAs following tone identification in two experiments, indicating that semantic competition occurs at response selection or later. Our results suggest that it is premature to assume that competitive selection occurs at multiple levels in the word production system (van Maanen, van Rijn, & Borst, 2009) or that the Stroop and semantic PWI effects are fundamentally different (Dell'Acqua et al., 2007).Keywords Psychological refractory period . Speech production . Picture-word interference paradigm In order to study word production, several well-studied methods have manipulated the difficulty with which we choose a word by increasing the availability of competitor words. We are generally slower when naming the presentation color of a word that spells a different color name (e.g., saying "black" when seeing WHITE vs. saying "black" when seeing BLACK; i.e., Stroop interference: Stroop, 1935). Likewise, we are generally slower when naming a picture of a "dog" while concurrently seeing the displayed word RABBIT rather than the word TABLE (semantic interference in the pictureword interference paradigm; see, e.g., Lupker, 1979).In both paradigms, the delay to choose the appropriate word to name is generally explained in similar ways (e.g., Roelofs, 2003). We are slower to produce the name (color/ picture) in the presence of words that are semantically related rather than unrelated to the target because the related distractor words receive priming from both the target's meaning and the printed distractor. Because the target name is selected on the basis of its activation level relative to the activation of other words in the lexicon, when competitors have increased activation, target selection takes more time (e.g., Roelofs, 1992; cf. Mahon, Costa, Peterson, Vargas, & Caramazza, 2007). This interference effect is thought not to occur during the identification of what meaning we need to convey (e.g., "black" or "dog"), but afterward, during response selection (Roelofs, 1992) or response execution (the prearticulatory buffer; Mahon et al., 2007).One source of evidence for the response selection locus of the Stroop effect comes from the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm. The PRP paradigm can be used to determine where the components of task processing occur during performance-for example, during stimulus perception, or afterward, during the selection and execution of the a...

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

“…As in Experiment 1, we observed that the stimulus type effects were additive with SOA for the naming responses, similar to what Schnur and Martin (2012) obtained, but different from Dell'Acqua et al's results. The additivity of the effects of stimulus type and SOA suggests that the semantic and Stroop-like interference occurred at the response-selection stage or later, which challenges the proposal of a pre-selection locus by Dell'Acqua et al Moreover, given that the distractor words were This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.…”

“…Such an effect on Task 1 RTs could indicate that participants' performance in the present experiment differed from performance in the studies of Dell'Acqua et al (2007) and Schnur and Martin (2012). If so, our pattern of additivity would have no bearing on the discussion regarding the locus of interference effects in dual-task performance.…”

“…Stimulus type and paradigm interacted, F 1 (2, 30) ϭ 7.46, p ϭ .002, indicating that the interference effects for the Stroop paradigm were larger than the Stroop-like effects in PWI. Importantly, the Stroop-like effects for the PWI task were significant, incongruent vs. congruent, t 1 (15) ϭ 5.50, p Ͻ .001, 95% confidence interval (CI) [55,128] Schnur and Martin (2012) and Piai and Roelofs (2013) observed for the semantic interference effect, but it differs from what Ayora et al (2011), Dell'Acqua et al (2007, and van Maanen et al (2012, Experiment 1) observed. The additivity of the effects of stimulus type and SOA suggests that the effects occurred at the response-selection stage or later (see Figure 1B), in disagreement with the proposal of a pre-selection locus by Dell'Acqua et al Moreover, given that all written words were phonologically regular, the findings do not agree with the account of Kleinman (2013).…”

“…In Fagot and Pashler's (1992) study, the distractor words corresponded to responses in the experiment, whereas that was not the case in the studies of Ayora et al (2011), Dell'Acqua et al (2007, Kleinman (2013), Schnur andMartin (2012), andvan Maanen et al (2012). Moreover, the number of tones used also differed among studies: two tones in Fagot and Pashler (Experiment 7) and Piai and Roelofs (2013) Ayora et al, 2011).…”

“…The experiments of Ayora et al (2011), Dell'Acqua et al (2007, Fagot and Pashler (1992, Experiment 7), Kleinman (2013), Schnur and Martin (2012), Roelofs (2013), andvan Maanen et al (2012) differ in several respects, including tasks, materials, SOAs, and stimulus types. The aim of the experiments reported in the present article was to examine whether any of these factors could have contributed to the difference in results between the earlier studies.…”