When bees hamper the production of honey: Lexical interference from associates in speech production.

Rahman, Rasha Abdel; Melinger, Alissa

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.604

Cited by 120 publications

(142 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

127

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In four of these studies (Abdel Rahman & Melinger, 2007;Alario et al, 2000;Brooks et al, 2013;Sailor et al, 2009), coordinate pairs that were not associates produced interference at some SOAs or did not reliably differ from their controls (i.e., they never produced facilitation). In contrast, associates that were not coordinates produced facilitation at some SOAs or did not differ from their controls (i.e., they never produced interference).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Part–Whole Relations Produce Facilitation in the Picture–Word Interference Task?

Sailor

Brooks

2014

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments used the picture-word interference task to evaluate competing models of lexical access in spoken word production. Both the presence of a part-whole relation and association between the target and the interfering word were manipulated. Part terms associated with targets produced facilitation at early stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs; -300 ms in Experiment 1, -300 and -150 ms in Experiment 3), but not at SOA 0 ms. Otherwise, part terms tended to produce interference, with unassociated part terms producing a significant semantic interference effect (SIE) at SOA of 0 ms in Experiment 1, and a similar trend in Experiment 3. Experiment 2 replicated the materials and procedure of Costa, Alario, and Caramazza ( 2005 , Experiment 2. On the categorical nature of the semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(1), 125-131), yet failed to find any semantic facilitation at SOA 0 ms. We propose that these findings are consistent with lexical competition accounts of SIE but difficult to explain in terms of the plausibility of the interfering words as responses to the target.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Part–Whole Relations Produce Facilitation in the Picture–Word Interference Task?

Sailor

Brooks

2014

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the Naming task, the behavioral pattern in response to the first presentation of stimuli can differ from what is observed in following repetitions. Indeed, the semantic interference effect can be absent or even reversed in the first presentation (e.g., Rahman and Melinger, 2007, Damian et al, 2001, Belke, Meyer, and Damian, 2005). Therefore, it is common practice to exclude the first occurrence of each stimulus on each block from the analysis of the semantic interference effect (e.g., Ewald et al, 2012).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Double dissociation of the roles of the left and right prefrontal cortices in anticipatory regulation of action

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent actions can benefit or disrupt our current actions and the prefrontal cortex (PFC) is thought to play a major role in the regulation of these actions before they occur. The left PFC has been associated with overcoming interference from past events in the context of language production and working memory. The right PFC, and especially the right IFG, has been associated with preparatory inhibition processes. But damage to the right PFC has also been associated with impairment in sustaining actions in motor intentional disorders. Moreover, bilateral dorsolateral PFC has been associated with the ability to maintain task-sets, and improve the performance of current actions based on previous experience. However, potential hemispheric asymmetries in anticipatory regulation of action have not yet been delineated. In the present study, patients with left (n=7) vs. right (n=6) PFC damage due to stroke and 14 aged- and education-matched controls performed a picture naming and a verbal Simon task (participants had to say “right” or “left” depending on the color of the picture while ignoring its position). In both tasks, performance depended on the nature of the preceding trial, but in different ways. In the naming task, performance decreased if previous pictures were from the same rather than from different semantic categories (i.e., semantic interference effect). In the Simon task, performance was better for both compatible (i.e., response matching the position of the stimulus) and incompatible trials when preceded by a trial of the same compatibility (i.e. Gratton effect) relative to sequential trials of different compatibility. Left PFC patients were selectively impaired in picture naming; they had an increased semantic interference effect compared to both right PFC patients and aged-matched controls. Conversely, right PFC patients were selectively impaired in the Simon task compared to controls or left PFC patients; they showed no benefit when sequential trials were compatible (cC vs. iC trials) or a decreased Gratton effect. These results provide evidence for a double dissociation between left and right PFC in the anticipatory regulation of action. Our results are in agreement with a preponderant role of the left PFC in overcoming proactive interference from competing memory representations and provide evidence that the right PFC, plays a role in sustaining goal-directed actions consistent with clinical data in right PFC patients with motor intentional disorders.

show abstract

“…The most widely discussed and detailed computational implementation within this second tradition is WEAVER++ (Roelofs, 1992; 1993; 2003; Levelt et al, 1999), although a number of other models have been proposed that involve lexical competition, most notably the models of La Heij and colleagues (La Heij, 1988; Bloem & La Heij, 2003; Bloem, van den Boogaard, & La Heij, 2004; see also Howard, Nickels, Coltheart, & Cole-Virtue, 2006). In addition, a range of authors have argued for lexical competition without proposing a formal model (e.g., Abdel Rahman & Melinger, 2007; Belke, Meyer, & Damian, 2005; Caramazza & Costa, 2000; Costa, Miozzo, & Caramazza, 1999; Damian & Bowers, 2003; Damian & Martin, 1999; Damian, Vigliocco, & Levelt, 2001; Hantsch & Madebach, 2013; Hantsch, Jescheniak, & Schriefers, 2005, 2009; Mulatti & Coltheart, 2012; in press; Santesteban, Costa, Pontin, & Navarrete, 2006; Schriefers, Meyer, & Levelt, 1990; Vigliocco, Lauer, Damian, & Levelt, 2002; Vitkovitch & Tyrrell, 1999). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Navarrete¹,

Prato²,

Peressotti³

et al. 2014

Journal of Memory and Language

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A central issue in research on speech production is whether or not the retrieval of words from the mental lexicon is a competitive process. An important experimental paradigm to study the dynamics of lexical retrieval is the blocked naming paradigm, in which participants name pictures of objects that are grouped by semantic category (‘homogenous’ or ‘related’ blocks) or not grouped by semantic category (‘heterogeneous’ or ‘unrelated’ blocks). Typically, pictures are repeated multiple times (or cycles) within both related and unrelated blocks. It is known that participants are slower in related than in unrelated blocks when the data are collapsed over all within-block repetitions. This semantic interference effect, as observed in the blocked naming task, is the strongest empirical evidence for the hypothesis of lexical selection by competition. Here we show, contrary to the accepted view, that the default polarity of semantic context effects in the blocked naming paradigm is facilitation, rather than interference. In a series of experiments we find that interference arises only when items repeat within a block, and only because of that repetition: What looks to be ‘semantic interference’ in the blocked naming paradigm is actually less repetition priming in related compared to unrelated blocks. These data undermine the theory of lexical selection by competition and indicate a model in which the most highly activated word is retrieved, regardless of the activation levels of nontarget words. We conclude that the theory of lexical selection by competition, and by extension the important psycholinguistic models based on that assumption, are no longer viable, and frame a new way to approach the question of how words are retrieved in spoken language production.

show abstract

When bees hamper the production of honey: Lexical interference from associates in speech production.

Cited by 120 publications

References 35 publications

Do Part–Whole Relations Produce Facilitation in the Picture–Word Interference Task?

Do Part–Whole Relations Produce Facilitation in the Picture–Word Interference Task?

Double dissociation of the roles of the left and right prefrontal cortices in anticipatory regulation of action

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About