Semantic priming over unrelated trials: Evidence for different effects in word and picture naming

Vitkovitch, Melanie; Cooper, Elisa; Leadbetter, Antony G.

doi:10.3758/bf03193590

Cited by 15 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, Wheeldon and Monsell (1994) required participants to name pictures and written definitions of objects and observed that naming latencies to picture targets (e.g., “shark”) were slower when some trials previously a semantic coordinate word (e.g., “whale”) was produced as a response to a written definition, compared to when a non-semantic coordinate was previously produced (e.g., “volcano”). Similar semantic costs are reported if instead of naming written definitions, participants name objects (Vitkovitch et al, 2006). Furthermore, when several objects of the same semantic category are presented to be named, the amount of interference is cumulative, so that the amount of the delay observed for each additional instance of the category that is named depends on the total number of exemplars of the same category that have already been named (Brown, 1981; Howard et al, 2006; Costa et al, 2009; Navarrete et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Factors Determining Semantic Facilitation and Interference in the Cyclic Naming Paradigm

Navarrete¹,

Prato²,

Mahon³

2012

Front. Psychology

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cyclic naming paradigm, in which participants are slower to name pictures blocked by semantic category than pictures in an unrelated context, offers a window into the dynamics of the mapping between lexical concepts and words. Here we provide evidence for the view that incremental adjustments to the connection weights from semantics to lexical items provides an elegant explanation of a range of observations within the cyclic naming paradigm. Our principal experimental manipulation is to vary the within-category semantic distance among items that must be named together in a block. In the first set of experiments we find that naming latencies are, if anything, faster for within-category semantically close blocks compared to within-category semantically far blocks, for the first presentation of items. This effect can be explained by the fact that there will be more spreading activation, and thus greater priming at the lexical level, for within-category semantically close blocks than within-category semantically far blocks. We test this explanation by inserting intervening filler items (geometric shapes), and show as predicted, that while intervening unrelated trials abolish short-lived semantic priming effects, the long-lag interference effect that is characteristic of this paradigm is unaffected. These data place new constraints on explanations of the cyclic naming effect, and related phenomena, within a model of language production.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Factors Determining Semantic Facilitation and Interference in the Cyclic Naming Paradigm

Navarrete¹,

Prato²,

Mahon³

2012

Front. Psychology

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this lag2 condition, the time interval between the onset of the prime and target was 6 sec., similar to previous studies reporting semantic interference (e.g., Wheeldon & Monsell, 1994). Third, to make the primetarget pairs less obvious to participants, we followed Wheeldon and Monsell (1994) and Vitkovitch et al (2001, 2006), presenting pictures at a consistent rate (2 sec. ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consistent with this hypothesis, the time interval between prime and target onsets is shorter in studies demonstrating facilitation (< 2 sec., Biggs & Marmurek, 1990; Huttenlocher & Kubicek, 1983; Lupker 1988; Sperber et al, 1979) compared to those demonstrating interference (> 4 sec., Vitkovitch et al, 2001; 2006; Wheeldon & Monsell, 1994). However, to allow for this conclusion, another explanation needs to be ruled out.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, to allow for this conclusion, another explanation needs to be ruled out. Semantic interference also occurs when all the pictures (prime and target) are presented at a consistent rate (Vitkovitch et al, 2001; 2006; Wheeldon & Monsell, 1994), while semantic facilitation occurs when the response-stimulus interval (RSI) between the prime and target is much shorter (< 1sec.) than the RSI between the target and next prime (3–10 sec.)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Being fast or slow at naming depends on recency of experience

Wei

Schnur

2019

Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The speed with which we produce words (e.g., dog) changes depending on whether a word named in the past is from the same semantic category (e.g., cat) or not (e.g., vase). Strikingly, whereas earlier studies find that producing semantically related words speeds up subsequent naming, recent studies report that it slows down future naming. It is unclear why the same experience results in opposite effects and whether both effects originate within the language system. Using the same picture naming paradigm and materials, we manipulated the interval between two naming events, while reducing the influence of expectation. We observed facilitation when semantically related pictures were presented adjacently. By contrast, when semantically related pictures were separated by two unrelated pictures, interference was observed. The results suggest that both facilitation and interference effects emerge within the language system where changes are critically based on the interval between naming, rather than solely due to peripheral processes associated with task demands.

show abstract

“…Similarly, response times for each subsequent within-category ordinal position encountered in the list are averaged across categories. Brown (1981) and later Howard and colleagues (2006) found that picture naming latencies increase with each within-category item that participants name—a phenomenon referred to as the ‘cumulative semantic cost’ (for related work, see Wheeldon & Monsell, 1994; Tree & Hirsh, 2003; Vitkovitch, Cooper-Pye, & Leadbetter, 2006; Vitkovitch, Cooper-Pye, & Ali, 2010; Vitkovitch, & Cooper-Pye, 2012). The Cumulative Semantic Cost is linear at least out to five ordinal positions within category (e.g., R 2 = .96 in Navarrete, Mahon, & Caramazza, 2010; see also Alario, & Moscoso del Prado Martin, 2010; Costa, Strijkers, Martin, & Thierry, 2009; Howard et al, 2006; Belke, 2013; Belke & Stielow, in press; Oppenheim, Dell, & Schwartz, 2010; Runnqvist, Strijkers, Alario, & Costa, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lexical selection is not by competition: Evidence from the blocked naming paradigm

Navarrete¹,

Prato²,

Peressotti³

et al. 2014

Journal of Memory and Language

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A central issue in research on speech production is whether or not the retrieval of words from the mental lexicon is a competitive process. An important experimental paradigm to study the dynamics of lexical retrieval is the blocked naming paradigm, in which participants name pictures of objects that are grouped by semantic category (‘homogenous’ or ‘related’ blocks) or not grouped by semantic category (‘heterogeneous’ or ‘unrelated’ blocks). Typically, pictures are repeated multiple times (or cycles) within both related and unrelated blocks. It is known that participants are slower in related than in unrelated blocks when the data are collapsed over all within-block repetitions. This semantic interference effect, as observed in the blocked naming task, is the strongest empirical evidence for the hypothesis of lexical selection by competition. Here we show, contrary to the accepted view, that the default polarity of semantic context effects in the blocked naming paradigm is facilitation, rather than interference. In a series of experiments we find that interference arises only when items repeat within a block, and only because of that repetition: What looks to be ‘semantic interference’ in the blocked naming paradigm is actually less repetition priming in related compared to unrelated blocks. These data undermine the theory of lexical selection by competition and indicate a model in which the most highly activated word is retrieved, regardless of the activation levels of nontarget words. We conclude that the theory of lexical selection by competition, and by extension the important psycholinguistic models based on that assumption, are no longer viable, and frame a new way to approach the question of how words are retrieved in spoken language production.

show abstract

Semantic priming over unrelated trials: Evidence for different effects in word and picture naming

Cited by 15 publications

References 65 publications

Factors Determining Semantic Facilitation and Interference in the Cyclic Naming Paradigm

Factors Determining Semantic Facilitation and Interference in the Cyclic Naming Paradigm

Being fast or slow at naming depends on recency of experience

Lexical selection is not by competition: Evidence from the blocked naming paradigm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About