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

Abstract

Accumulating evidence suggests that spoken word production requires different amounts of top-down control depending on the prevailing circumstances. For example, during Stroop-like tasks, the interference in response time (RT) is typically larger following congruent trials than following incongruent trials. This effect is called the Gratton effect, and has been taken to reflect top-down control adjustments based on the previous trial type. Such control adjustments have been studied extensively in Stroop and Eriksen flanker tasks (mostly using manual responses), but not in the picture-word interference (PWI) task, which is a workhorse of language production research. In one of the few studies of the Gratton effect in PWI, Van Maanen and Van Rijn (2010) examined the effect in picture naming RTs during dual-task performance. Based on PWI effect differences between dual-task conditions, they argued that the functional locus of the PWI effect differs between post-congruent trials (i.e., locus in perceptual and conceptual encoding) and post-incongruent trials (i.e., locus in word planning). However, the dual-task procedure may have contaminated the results. We therefore performed an electroencephalography (EEG) study on the Gratton effect in a regular PWI task. We observed a PWI effect in the RTs, in the N400 component of the event-related brain potentials, and in the midfrontal theta power, regardless of the previous trial type. Moreover, the RTs, N400, and theta power reflected the Gratton effect. These results provide evidence that the PWI effect arises at the word planning stage following both congruent and incongruent trials, while the amount of top-down control changes depending on the previous trial type.

A critical review of the behavioural, neuroimaging, and electrophysiological studies of co-activation of representations during word production

“…Since congruent trials in Stroop map onto the same representation, while incongruent trials map onto two different representations, the general pattern of N450 matches the N400-like effects in PWI studies with identity vs. semantic distractors (Piai et al, 2012;Shitova et al, 2017): The addition of a new representation (the non-identity distractor) induces more negativity on N450 and the ERPs observed within the N400 window in PWI, blocked cyclic and continuous naming paradigms, suggesting a possible common origin.…”

“…Compared to the early window, the findings in the N400 window have been reported more uniformly. PWI studies that compared semantically related to identity distractors have found more negative waveforms in the N400 time window for the semantically related distractors (Piai, Roelofs, & van der Meij, 2012;Shitova, Roelofs, Schriefers, Bastiaansen, & Schoffelen, 2017). It is important to note that the "identity" distractor does not activate a separate representation from that of the target.…”

Monitoring and Control in Language Production

“…Despite various explanations, all agree that this effect (often called conflict adaptation) reflects dynamic reactive control, once stimulus-repetition and learning confounds are removed (Duthoo & Notebaert, 2012). Similar adaptation patterns have emerged in production using a Picture-Word Interference (PWI) task Shitova, Roelofs, Schriefers, Bastiaansen, & Schoffelen, 2017), when individuals must name images (e.g., truck) despite a semantically distracting word superimposed on it (e.g., car). This finding suggests that, similar to nonverbal tasks, language production is regulated in real time via a monitoring-control loop.…”

Task difficulty modulates brain-behavior correlations in language production and cognitive control: Behavioral and fMRI evidence from a phonological go/no-go picture-naming paradigm

“…However, language production often involves cognitive control 1 . For instance, many behavioral and neuroimaging studies have demonstrated that language production involves conflict monitoring and control (Freund, Gordon, & Nozari, 2016; Gauvin, De Baene, Brass, & Hartsuiker, 2016; Hanley, Cortis, Budd, & Nozari, 2016; Nozari, Dell, & Schwartz, 2011; Nozari & Novick, 2017; Riès, Janssen, Dufau, Alario, & Burle, 2011; Shitova, Roelofs, Schriefers, Bastiaansen, & Schoffelen, 2017; Van Maanen & Van Rijn, 2010), engaging language related regions such as left middle temporal cortex (de Zubicaray, McMahon, & Howard, 2015; de Zubicaray, Wilson, McMahon, & Muthiah, 2001) and domain general regions such as pre supplementary motor area, anterior cingulate, and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (Nozari & Novick, 2017). Language production also involves inhibitory control (Shao, Meyer, & Roelofs, 2013; Shao, Roelofs, Acheson, & Meyer, 2014; Shao, Roelofs, & Meyer, 2012; Tydgat, Diependaele, Hartsuiker, & Pickering, 2012; Tydgat, Stevens, Hartsuiker, & Pickering, 2011), and other types of control processes (Nozari, Freund, Breining, Rapp, & Gordon, 2016).…”