The mechanism underlying lexical selection: Evidence from the picture–picture interference paradigm

Abstract

In two experiments using the picture–picture and picture–word interference paradigms, we compared predictions from the swinging lexical network and the response exclusion hypothesis to determine whether the process of word selection is competitive. Further, we suggest that previous categorical effects in the picture–picture interference paradigm were due to stimuli confounds, thus readdressing the debate concerning categorical effects in the paradigm. Consistent with both hypotheses, in Experiment 1 we found faster picture naming times when distractor pictures were associatively related than when they were unrelated, explained as a result of a spread of activation at the conceptual level with little (swinging lexical network) or no (response exclusion hypothesis) contribution from lexical competition. In Experiment 2, we found a significant categorical interference effect in the picture–word interference paradigm, and this effect significantly decreased but was not facilitatory when distractors were pictures. We discuss how these results are consistent with the swinging lexical network and conclude that the process to select a word is a competitive one.

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

“…The observations of accumulative (i.e., within block) and extended (i.e., over many repetitions) semantic facilitation in the blocked naming paradigm, together with our proposed account of the experimental conditions under which interference arises, collectively undermine the view of lexical selection by competition (e.g., Abdel Rahman & Melinger, 2007, 2009a, 2011; Aristei et al, 2011; Belke, 2008; Belke & Stielow, in press; Belke et al, 2005a; 2005b; Costa, Miozzo, Caramazza, 1999; Damian & Bowers, 2003; Damian et al, 2001; Geng, Kirchgessner, & Schnur, 2013; Hantsch et al, 2005, 2009; 2012; Humphreys, Lloyd-Jones, & Fias, 1995; La Heij, 1988; Levelt et al, 1999; Piai et al, 2012; Roelofs, 1992, 2003; Roelofs & Piai, in press; Santesteban et al, 2006; Schriefers et al, 1990; Starreveld & La Heij, 1995; Vigliocco et al, 2004). As discussed above, there have been a number of ways in which the hypothesis of lexical competition has been squared with problematic findings in the picture-word paradigm (Piai et al, 2012; Roelofs & Piai, in press; Abdel Rahman & Melinger, 2009a; Hantsch & Madebach, 2013; but see Mahon & Caramazza, 2009; Mahon & Navarrete, under review; Navarrete & Mahon, 2013).…”

Semantic interference is not modality specific: Evidence from sound naming with distractor pictures

“…100 ms with distractor words (Glaser & Düngelhoff, 1984) and with distractor pictures (Jescheniak et al, 2009). Similarly, semantic interference in picture naming rarely exceeds 30 to 40 ms with distractor words (e.g., Alario et al, 2000; Damian & Martin, 1999; Geng et al, 2013; Lupker, 1979; Schriefers et al, 1990; cf. Glaser & Düngelhoff, 1984).…”

“…A core assumption of this non-competitive account is that semantic interference is restricted to distractor words. A number of studies using distractor pictures instead of distractor words (picture-picture interference task) have produced mixed results, with some studies showing semantic facilitation or no effect (e.g., La Heij, Heikoop, Akerboom, & Bloem, 2003;Damian & Bowers, 2003;Geng, Kirchgessner, & Schnur, 2013) and others showing semantic interference (e.g., Jescheniak, Matushanskaya, Mädebach, & Müller, 2014;Matushanskaya, Mädebach, Müller, & Jescheniak, 2016; see also Aristei, Zwitserlood, & Abdel Rahman, 2012). A recent comprehensive series of picture-picture interference experiments from our lab, using different kinds of materials, stimulus configurations, and task cues, however, has showed semantic interference from distractor pictures quite consistently (Mädebach, Wöhner, & Jescheniak, 2018).…”

Semantic interference is not modality specific: Evidence from sound naming with distractor pictures

“…100 ms with distractor words (Glaser & Düngelhoff, 1984) and with distractor pictures (Jescheniak et al, 2009). Similarly, semantic interference in picture naming rarely exceeds 30 -40 ms with distractor words (e.g., Alario, Segui & Ferrand, 2000;Damian & Martin, 1999;Geng et al, 2013;Lupker, 1979;Schriefers et al, 1990;cf. Glaser & Düngelhoff, 1984).…”