The influence of age of acquisition in word reading and other tasks: A never ending story?

Bonin, Patrick; Barry, Christopher; Méot, Alain; Chalard, Marylène

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.001

Cited by 174 publications

(285 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

211

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, our allocation of the frequency-independent AoA effect at the level of lemma selection is compatible with the generalisation arising from a number of studies suggesting that AoA effects arise in tasks requiring arbitrary mappings between processing units (e.g. Bonin, Barry, Méot, & Chalard, 2004;Ellis & Lambon Ralph, 2000;Zevin and Seidenberg, 2002). …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Age of acquisition effects in picture naming: evidence for a lexical-semantic competition hypothesis

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many tasks the effects of frequency and age of acquisition (AoA) on reaction latencies are similar in size. However, in picture naming the AoA-effect is often significantly larger than expected on the basis of the frequency-effect. Previous explanations of this frequency-independent AoA-effect have attributed it to the organisation of the semantic system or to the way phonological word forms are stored in the mental lexicon. Using a semantic blocking paradigm, we show that semantic context effects on naming latencies are more pronounced for late-acquired than for early-acquired words. This interaction between AoA and naming context is likely to arise during lexical-semantic encoding, which we put forward as the locus for the frequency-independent AoA-effect. q 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Keywords: Age-of-acquisition; Picture naming; Lexical retrieval; Semantic context Word processing times depend not only on the frequency with which the words occur in texts, but also on the age at which they were acquired (age-of-acquisition, AoA). Words that were acquired early in life are responded to faster than late-acquired words of the same frequency (Morrison & Ellis, 1995). In word naming and lexical decision, the effects 0022-2860/$ -see front matter q

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Age of acquisition effects in picture naming: evidence for a lexical-semantic competition hypothesis

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, it may have been the case that in that paradigm participants delayed lexical processing of the target picture name until presentation of the cue. In contrast, in Experiment 1, we directly assessed whether participants prepared their picture-naming responses by manipulating the frequency of the target pictures.It is important to note that in studies in which the stimuli consist of pictures of common objects, the lexical frequency variable often correlates with subjective familiarity and age of acquisition variables (e.g., Barry, Morrison, & Ellis, 1997;Bonin, Barry, Méot, & Chalard, 2006;Caroll & White, 1973;Ellis & Morrison, 1998;Gordon, 1983). In our study (both Experiment 1 above and Experiment 2 below) this correlation is also present.…”

supporting

confidence: 59%

Semantic interference in a delayed naming task: Evidence for the response exclusion hypothesis.

Janssen¹,

Schirm²,

Mahon³

et al. 2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

100

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2 experiments participants named pictures of common objects with superimposed distractor words. In one naming condition, the pictures and words were presented simultaneously on every trial, and participants produced the target response immediately. In the other naming condition, the presentation of the picture preceded the presentation of the distractor by 1,000 ms, and participants delayed production of their naming response until distractor word presentation. Within each naming condition, the distractor words were either semantic category coordinates of the target pictures or unrelated. Orthogonal to this manipulation of semantic relatedness, the frequency of the pictures' names was manipulated. The authors observed semantic interference effects in both the immediate and delayed naming conditions but a frequency effect only in the immediate naming condition. These data indicate that semantic interference can be observed when target picture naming latencies do not reflect the bottleneck at the level of lexical selection. In the context of other findings from the picture-word interference paradigm, the authors interpret these data as supporting the view that the semantic interference effect arises at a postlexical level of processing.Keywords semantic interference effect; lexical selection by competition; picture-word interference; delayed naming; response exclusion hypothesis A central question in language production research concerns the dynamical principles that govern the mechanism responsible for retrieving words from the mental lexicon. A widespread assumption in language production models is that lexical selection is a competitive process (e.g., La Heij, 1988;Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999;Roelofs, 2003). The hypothesis of lexical selection by competition proposes that the time it takes to select a NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript target word increases as the levels of activation of nontarget words increase. The primary source of empirical evidence cited in support of lexical selection by competition is the semantic interference effect (e.g., Lupker, 1979;Rosinski, 1977): Naming a picture of an object (e.g., CAR) is slower in the context of a semantic category coordinate distractor word (e.g., truck) compared to an unrelated distractor word (e.g., An alternative to lexical selection by competition is the view that the highest activated lexical node is selected, without regard to the levels of activation of nontarget lexical nodes (e.g., Caramazza, 1997;Dell, 1986;Stemberger, 1985). 2 If one adopted such a model of lexical selection then the range of semantic facilitation effects that have been reported in the literature would follow as a natural consequence (Costa et al., 2005;Finkbeiner & Caramazza, 2006;Mahon et al., 2007). Specifically, such semantic facilitation effects would arise as a result of semantic priming between distractor words and target pictures. However, if one assumed that the semantic facilitation effects arise during lexical selecti...

show abstract

“…Barry et al, 2001;Gerhand & Barry, 1998, 1999a, 1999bEllis & Lambon Ralph, 2000;Izura & Ellis, 2002;Morrison, Hirsh, Chappell, & Ellis, 2002). More specifically, AoA effects presumably result from differences in the strength of the connection between semantic and phonological processing levels or between semantic-lemma or lemmalexeme levels (Barry, Johnston, & Wood, 2006;Bonin, Barry, Méot, & Chalard, 2004;Catling & Johnston, 2005;Chalard & Bonin, 2006;Ellis & Lambon Ralph, 2000;Monaghan & Ellis, 2002;Zevin & Seidenberg, 2002).…”

Section: Age Of Acquisition Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Age of acquisition and repetition priming effects on picture naming of children who do and do not stutter

Anderson

2008

Journal of Fluency Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of age of acquisition and repetition priming on picture naming latencies and errors were studied in 22 children who stutter (CWS) and 22 children who do not stutter (CWNS) between the ages of 3;1 and 5;7. Children participated in a computerized picture naming task where they named pictures of both early and late acquired (AoA) words in two consecutive stages. Findings revealed that all children's picture naming latencies and errors were reduced following repetition priming and in response to early AoA words relative to late AoA words. AoA and repetition priming effects were similar for children in both talker groups, with one exception. Namely, CWS benefitted significantly more, in terms of error reduction, than CWNS from repetition priming for late AoA words. In addition, CWNS exhibited a significant, positive association between linguistic speed and measures of vocabulary, but CWS did not. These findings were taken to suggest that the (a) semanticphonological connections of CWS may not be as strong as those of CWNS, and (b) lexical measures may not be sensitive enough to differentiate CWS from CWNS in lexically-related aspects of language production.

show abstract

The influence of age of acquisition in word reading and other tasks: A never ending story?

Cited by 174 publications

References 65 publications

Age of acquisition effects in picture naming: evidence for a lexical-semantic competition hypothesis

Age of acquisition effects in picture naming: evidence for a lexical-semantic competition hypothesis

Semantic interference in a delayed naming task: Evidence for the response exclusion hypothesis.

Age of acquisition and repetition priming effects on picture naming of children who do and do not stutter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About