Timed picture naming norms for 590 pictures in Dutch

Severens, Els; Lommel, Sven Van; Ratinckx, Elie; Hartsuiker, Robert J.

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.01.002

Cited by 149 publications

(167 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

160

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For comparability with previous studies, we therefore also included a frequency manipulation. Half of the pictures had low frequency (M= 5.6 per million, min= 1, max= 16.0), and the other half had high frequency names in Dutch (M= 99.6 per million, min= 18.0, max= 900.0), (based on CELEX, Baayen, Piepenbrock, & van Rijn, 1995, as reported by Severens et al, 2005).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 93%

If you stay, it might be easier: Switch costs from comprehension to production in a joint switching task.

Gambi¹,

Hartsuiker²

2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Switching language is costly for bilingual speakers and listeners, suggesting that language control is effortful in both modalities. But are the mechanisms underlying language control similar across modalities? In this study, we attempted to answer this question by testing whether bilingual speakers incur a cost when switching to a different language than the one just used by their interlocutor. Pairs of unbalanced Dutch (L1) -English (L2) bilinguals took turns naming pictures in a pure Dutch, a pure English, and a mixed-language block. In the mixed block, one participant (Switching Participant) voluntarily switched between Dutch and English, whereas the other (NonSwitching Participant) named all pictures in Dutch. Within the mixed block, the Non-Switching participant took longer to name pictures when the Switching participant's response on the preceding trial had been in English rather than Dutch, and this local switch cost was larger the more the NonSwitching participant was proficient in English. Additionally, there was strong cross-person itemlevel interference: The Non-Switching participant named pictures more slowly in Dutch if the Switching participant had previously named those same pictures in English rather than Dutch.These findings indicate that comprehension of utterances produced by another speaker in L2 makes subsequent production of L1 utterances more costly. We interpret this as evidence that language control mechanisms are shared between comprehension and production, and specifically that bottom-up factors have a considerable influence on language selection processes in both modalities.Keywords: voluntary language switching; joint task; comprehension; production. Bilinguals often switch between their languages, especially during informal conversations with other bilinguals (e.g., Grosjean, 2001). However, switching language leads to slower responses in laboratory tasks, both when bilinguals produce a switch (e.g., Meuter & Allport, 1999) and when they comprehend a switch (e.g., Thomas & Allport, 2000). Showing that language switches are costly to process in comprehension and to execute in production is relevant for theories of bilingual dialogue since bilingual interlocutors tend to switch between their shared languages within their respective turns (e.g., Grosjean, 2001). But furthermore, in some bilingual conversations, each interlocutor consistently uses only one language (normally her first language, L1), so that switches occur between turns (if the two bilinguals have different L1's). Thus, bilinguals may also be confronted with switches from comprehension (of their interlocutor's utterance) to production (of their own utterance).The goal of the present study was to investigate whether comprehension of utterances produced by another speaker in one's second language (L2) makes subsequent production of L1 utterances more costly. As we explain below, the occurrence of cross-person switch costs is compatible with theories of bilingual lexical selection that assume shared language contro...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 93%

If you stay, it might be easier: Switch costs from comprehension to production in a joint switching task.

Gambi¹,

Hartsuiker²

2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies on speech production identified some of the most important predictors of naming performance (e.g., Alario et al, 2004;Barry et al, 1997;Cycowicz et al, 1997;Ellis & Morrison, 1998;Lachman et al, 1974;Severens et al, 2005;Snodgrass & Yuditsky, 1996;Vitkovitch & Tyrrell, 1995). Based on these studies, we included several influential predictors such as name agreement, lexical frequency and age of acquisition to investigate whether PhND would impact speech performance beyond the effects of these variables.…”

Section: Predictor Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given the discrepancy of the present results with these two findings, we conducted several re-analyses of our data, the data of Baus et al and that of Pérez. Moreover, we conducted analyses of the effect of PhND on three sets of chronometric data from previously published papers that were available to us: a naming study in Spanish (Sadat et al, 2012), a large-scale naming study in French (Alario et al, 2004), and an additional large-scale naming study in Dutch (Severens et al, 2005; see Table 3 for an overview of re-analyses).…”

Section: Further Evidence From Chronometric Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, we explored the effect of PhND res in a non-Romance language, using a largescale naming dataset in Dutch (Severens et al, 2005). We introduced the variables of the original study (H statistics, age of acquisition, lexical frequency, phoneme length) together with PhND res , summed neighborhood frequency (from the Dutch database CELEX; Baayen et al, 1993), and trial order into a linear mixed-effects model.…”

Section: Reanalysis Of Severens Et Al (2005)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reconciling phonological neighborhood effects in speech production through single trial analysis

Sadat

Martin

Costa

et al. 2014

Cognitive Psychology

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A crucial step for understanding how lexical knowledge is represented is to describe the relative similarity of lexical items, and how it influences language processing. Previous studies of the effects of form similarity on word production have reported conflicting results, notably within and across languages. The aim of the present study was to clarify this empirical issue to provide specific constraints for theoretical models of language production. We investigated the role of phonological neighborhood density in a large-scale picture naming experiment using finegrained statistical models. The results showed that increasing phonological neighborhood density has a detrimental effect on naming latencies, and re-analyses of independently obtained data sets provide supplementary evidence for this effect. Finally, we reviewed a large body of evidence concerning phonological neighborhood density effects in word production, and discussed the occurrence of facilitatory and inhibitory effects in accuracy measures. The overall pattern shows that phonological neighborhood generates two opposite forces, one facilitatory and one inhibitory. In cases where speech production is disrupted (e.g. certain aphasic symptoms), the facilitatory component may emerge, but inhibitory processes dominate in efficient naming by healthy speakers. These findings are difficult to accommodate in terms of monitoring processes, but can be explained within interactive activation accounts combining phonological facilitation and lexical competition. 2Reconciling phonological neighborhood effects in speech production through single trial analysis Native speakers of a language know a myriad of different words. This so-called mental lexicon is often described as an interconnected network in which representation distance may depend on meaning or form similarities among the words. One crucial step for understanding this network is to describe which kind of similarity influences language processing and how it modulates performance. In this context, the current research is concerned with the role of phonological similarity in word retrieval and speech production. This issue has been addressed in earlier theoretical work (e.g. Chen & Mirman, 2012;Dell & Gordon, 2003), but the empirical evidence on which this work is grounded remains controversial. Our goal in this article is to clarify the empirical facts regarding form similarity effects in speech production, and to integrate them within a single account. Clearing the empirical constraints will allow further refinement of theoretical models to advance our understanding of the cognitive processes underlying speech production.An approximation of how similar or interconnected a word is within the lexical network can be obtained by computing its phonological neighborhood density (PhND). PhND refers to the number of words that can be formed from a given word by substituting, adding or deleting one phoneme (Luce, 1986). For example, the word "bat" sounds similar to many other words (e.g., "cat", "fat",...

show abstract

“…The average natural log frequency taken from CELEX for the singular forms was 6.3 (SD = 1.3); for the plural forms this was 5.4 (SD = 1; Baayen, Piepenbrock, & Van Rijn, 1993). The pictures were taken from the Severens picture database and had a mean naming latency of 901 ms (SD = 145 ms; Severens, Lommel, Ratinckx, & Hartsuiker, 2005). The pictures were simple black line drawings that were all approximately 128 × 98 pixels in size, viewed with 2 × 1.5°visual angle.…”

Section: Materials and Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of parallel planning on agreement production

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f oAn important issue in current psycholinguistics is how the time course of utterance planning affects the generation of grammatical structures. The current study investigated the influence of parallel activation of the components of complex noun phrases on the generation of subject-verb agreement. Specifically, the lexical interference account (Gillespie & Pearlmutter, 2011b;Solomon & Pearlmutter, 2004) predicts more agreement errors (i.e., attraction) for subject phrases in which the head and local noun mismatch in number (e.g., the apple next to the pears) when nouns are planned in parallel than when they are planned in sequence. We used a speeded picture description task that yielded sentences such as the apple next to the pears is red. The objects mentioned in the noun phrase were either semantically related or unrelated. To induce agreement errors, pictures sometimes mismatched in number. In order to manipulate the likelihood of parallel processing of the objects and to test the hypothesized relationship between parallel processing and the rate of agreement errors, the pictures were either placed close together or far apart. Analyses of the participants' eye movements and speech onset latencies indicated slower processing of the first object and stronger interference from the related (compared to the unrelated) second object in the close than in the far condition. Analyses of the agreement errors yielded an attraction effect, with more errors in mismatching than in matching conditions. However, the magnitude of the attraction effect did not differ across the close and far conditions. Thus, spatial proximity encouraged parallel processing of the pictures, which led to interference of the associated conceptual and/or lexical representation, but, contrary to the prediction, it did not lead to more attraction errors.

show abstract

Timed picture naming norms for 590 pictures in Dutch

Cited by 149 publications

References 39 publications

If you stay, it might be easier: Switch costs from comprehension to production in a joint switching task.

If you stay, it might be easier: Switch costs from comprehension to production in a joint switching task.

Reconciling phonological neighborhood effects in speech production through single trial analysis

Effects of parallel planning on agreement production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About