Tracking eye movements to localize Stroop interference in naming: Word planning versus articulatory buffering.

Abstract

Investigators have found no agreement on the functional locus of Stroop interference in vocal naming. Whereas it has long been assumed that the interference arises during spoken word planning, more recently some investigators have revived an account from the 1960s and 1970s holding that the interference occurs in an articulatory buffer after word planning. Here, 2 color-word Stroop experiments are reported that tested between these accounts using eye tracking. Previous research has indicated that the shifting of eye gaze from a stimulus to another occurs before the articulatory buffer is reached in spoken word planning. In the present experiments, participants were presented with color-word Stroop stimuli and left- or right-pointing arrows on different sides of a computer screen. They named the color attribute and shifted their gaze to the arrow to manually indicate its direction. If Stroop interference arises in the articulatory buffer, the interference should be present in the color-naming latencies but not in the gaze shift and manual response latencies. Contrary to these predictions, Stroop interference was present in all 3 behavioral measures. These results indicate that Stroop interference arises during spoken word planning rather than in articulatory buffering.

Control adjustments in speaking: Electrophysiology of the Gratton effect in picture naming

“…It is important to note that researchers have found no agreement on the functional locus of interference in the PWI task. Picture naming is generally assumed to consist of three main stages (e.g., Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999;Roelofs, 2003Roelofs, , 2014. First, the picture is perceived and conceptually identified based on the stimulus features, hereafter the perceptual and conceptual encoding stage.…”

Using Brain Potentials to Functionally Localise Stroop-Like Effects in Colour and Picture Naming: Perceptual Encoding versus Word Planning

“…Then the corresponding spoken word is planned based on information retrieved from long-term lexical memory, henceforth the word planning stage (cf. [ 2 , 5 , 16 ]). Finally the planned spoken name is articulated (e.g., [ 2 , 5 ]).…”

“…[ 2 , 5 , 16 ]). Finally the planned spoken name is articulated (e.g., [ 2 , 5 ]). In Stroop or PWI, depending on the condition, the distractor word either interferes with this target processing stream or facilitates it [ 12 ].…”

“…According to the word-planning account, the distractor word may compete with the picture/colour name at the stages of lemma retrieval and word-form encoding, jointly referred to as word planning by Levelt et al [ 2 ] and Roelofs [ 5 , 16 ]. The specific interference effects associated with these stages were discussed by Roelofs [ 5 ]. In particular, a congruent distractor helps lemma retrieval and word-form encoding for the target name because activation from the picture/colour and distractor word converges on the target lemma and word form.…”

Aspects of competition in word production: Reply to Mahon and Navarrete

“…It is important to note that competition in WEAVER++ not only occurs in lexical selection but also in the selection of motor programs (i.e., during phonetic encoding, before articulatory buffering), see Roelofs (1997Roelofs ( , 2010aRoelofs ( , 2014 and Levelt et al (1999). Lexical selection is the relevant level for the issue of the locus of semantic interference (semantically 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 11 related vs. unrelated words), but for the distractor-frequency effect, both lexical selection and motor-program levels matter.…”