The Absoluteness of Semantic Processing: Lessons from the Analysis of Temporal Clusters in Phonemic Verbal Fluency

Abstract

BackgroundFor word production, we may consciously pursue semantic or phonological search strategies, but it is uncertain whether we can retrieve the different aspects of lexical information independently from each other. We therefore studied the spread of semantic information into words produced under exclusively phonemic task demands.Methods42 subjects participated in a letter verbal fluency task, demanding the production of as many s-words as possible in two minutes. Based on curve fittings for the time courses of word production, output spurts (temporal clusters) considered to reflect rapid lexical retrieval based on automatic activation spread, were identified. Semantic and phonemic word relatedness within versus between these clusters was assessed by respective scores (0 meaning no relation, 4 maximum relation).ResultsSubjects produced 27.5 (±9.4) words belonging to 6.7 (±2.4) clusters. Both phonemically and semantically words were more related within clusters than between clusters (phon: 0.33±0.22 vs. 0.19±0.17, p<.01; sem: 0.65±0.29 vs. 0.37±0.29, p<.01). Whereas the extent of phonemic relatedness correlated with high task performance, the contrary was the case for the extent of semantic relatedness.ConclusionThe results indicate that semantic information spread occurs, even if the consciously pursued word search strategy is purely phonological. This, together with the negative correlation between semantic relatedness and verbal output suits the idea of a semantic default mode of lexical search, acting against rapid task performance in the given scenario of phonemic verbal fluency. The simultaneity of enhanced semantic and phonemic word relatedness within the same temporal cluster boundaries suggests an interaction between content and sound-related information whenever a new semantic field has been opened.

Clustering e switching em deficientes auditivos usuários do português brasileiro: fluência verbal semântica e fonológica

“…It has been shown previously that even in the phonological tests there is a tendency to generate words with semantic correlations 15,20 .…”

“…However, some studies of young adults [11][12][13][14][15] , elderly and neurological diseases 16,17 , provided data regarding the abilities of clustering and switching of these populations, arguing that this analysis provides aditional information in regard to the cognitive flexibility, executive function and lexical organization. There is no normative data for these parameters for Brazilian Portuguese.…”

“…Some studies found in young adults without conditions, total words recalled that varied between 14.0 and 26.2 on average in the semantic test, and 9.5 and 15.1 in phonological test; already for the average cluster size, the values range between 0.75 and 1.7 for semantics, and phonological between 0.24 and 1.4. The number of switches varies in studies between 7.0 and 11.6 for the group "animals" and between 7.9 and 10.55 for letters 12,[14][15][16][17][18] . Regarding the comparative performance of the two tests and the factors determining the results, there is greater agreement in the literature, and in this study has obtained similar data to studies cited, even analysing itself a different population.…”

“…In terms of language processing, lexical memory is divided into clusters: groups performed automatically during the learning process according to the degree of semantic similarity or phonological elements 3 , this form of organization enhances information retrieval speed according to a given context. Associated with clustering ability, the ability to change strategy and lexical access in different groups according to changes in demand or facing new stimuli is known as switching, and is related to attention and reasoning 4 .…”

Overcoming duality: the fused bousfieldian function for modeling word production in verbal fluency tasks

“…Indeed, the idea of coactivation is supported by facilitatory effects found, for example, in lexical priming studies (e.g., Apfelbaum, Blumstein, & McMurray, 2011;D. E. Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1971), semantic judgment tasks (e.g., Jackson et al, 2015), lexical cluster analysis (e.g., Fitzgerald, 1983;Graesser & Mandler, 1978;Gruenewald & Lockhead, 1980;Pollio, 1964;Troyer, Moscovitch, & Winocur, 1997;Vonberg, Ehlen, Fromm, & Klostermann, 2014), and phonological neighborhood effects (e.g., Braun et al, 2015;Muller, Dunabeitia, & Carreiras, 2010). However, it has been proposed that interference among coactivated related items delays the selection of the most appropriate item, as observed, for example, in naming tasks, verbal recall, or verbal fluency (VF) tasks (Bauml, Zellner, & Vilimek, 2005;Bousfield, Sedgewick, & Cohen, 1954;Costa et al, 2009;Johnson, Johnson, & Mark, 1951;McGill, 1963;Raaijmakers & Shiffrin, 1980;Rohrer, 1996;Rohrer, Wixted, Salmon, & Butters, 1995).…”