Cumulative semantic inhibition in picture naming: experimental and computational studies

Howard, David; Nickels, Lyndsey; Coltheart, Max; Cole‐Virtue, Jennifer

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.02.006

Cited by 347 publications

(833 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

743

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The present results are also relevant to the debate about the mechanisms responsible for the cumulative interference effect in the continuous naming paradigm, in which naming latencies increase monotonically with each ordinal presentation within a category, unaffected by lag (e.g., Howard et al, 2006). Oppenheim et al (2010) proposed that cumulative interference effects in both naming paradigms reflect the operation of identical mechanisms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…This is a likely scenario in the blocked-cyclic paradigm that involves repeating small sets of items. Damian and Als (2005) noted that a computational simulation might therefore involve adaptations in a lexical representation"s excitability on subsequent trials, either by incrementing its resting level following access or by adjusting the rate at which it attains activation (i.e., its bias; e.g., Howard et al, 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A perfusion fMRI investigation of thematic and categorical context effects in the spoken production of object names

Zubicaray

Johnson

Howard

et al. 2014

Cortex

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The context in which objects are presented influences the speed at which they are named. We employed the blocked cyclic naming paradigm and perfusion fMRI to investigate the mechanisms responsible for interference effects reported for thematically-and categorically-related compared to unrelated contexts. Naming objects in categorically homogeneous contexts induced a significant interference effect that accumulated from the second cycle onwards. This interference effect was associated with significant perfusion signal decreases in left middle and posterior lateral temporal cortex and the hippocampus. By contrast, thematically homogeneous contexts facilitated naming latencies significantly in the first cycle and did not differ from heterogeneous contexts thereafter, nor were they associated with any perfusion signal changes compared to heterogeneous contexts. These results are interpreted as being consistent with an account in which the interference effect both originates and has its locus at the lexical level, with an incremental learning mechanism adapting the activation levels of target lexical representations following access. We discuss the implications of these findings for accounts that assume thematic relations can be active lexical competitors or assume mandatory involvement of top-down control mechanisms in interference effects during naming.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A perfusion fMRI investigation of thematic and categorical context effects in the spoken production of object names

Zubicaray

Johnson

Howard

et al. 2014

Cortex

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…computationally modeled as a result of co-activated lexical representations that compete for selection (Howard et al, 2006;Oppenheim et al, 2010;Roelofs, 1992cf. Janssen, Carreiras, & Barber, 2011;Mahon, Costa, Peterson, Vargas, & Caramazza, 2007) which then delays naming and creates more errors.…”

Section: Neural Substrates Of Semantic Interferencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, while trending temporal lobe (gray and white matter) effects in naming could become significant with the addition of more subjects, these effects if significant would be consistent with the conclusions we draw from the results. Specifically, because the relatedness effect in blocked-cyclic naming is hypothesized to be a semantically driven lexical process (e.g., Damian et al, 2001;Howard et al, 2006;Belke, 2013), damage to the anterior half of the temporal lobe and underlying white matter may also predict exaggerated relatedness effects in naming. Thus, this effect, if significant would not detract from the main findings presented here demonstrating that a critical difference between semantic interference in production and comprehension lies in where the competition takes its effect: during access to lexical vs. semantic representations, respectively.…”

Section: Neural Substrates Of Semantic Interference 36mentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinct loci of lexical and semantic access deficits in aphasia: Evidence from voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping and diffusion tensor imaging

Harvey

Schnur

2015

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please cite this article as: Harvey DY, Schnur TT, Distinct loci of lexical and semantic access deficits in aphasia: Evidence from voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping and diffusion tensor imaging, CORTEX (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.03.004. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Further, damage to the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG), a region implicated in cognitive control, results in increasing semantic interference when items repeat across cycles in both language production and comprehension (Jefferies, Baker, Doran, & Lambon Ralph, 2007). This generates the prediction that the LIFG via white matter connections supports resolution of semantic interference arising from different loci (lexical vs. semantic) in the temporal lobe. However, it remains unclear whether the cognitive and neural mechanisms that resolve semantic interference are the same across tasks. Thus, we examined which gray matter structures (using whole brain and region of interest approaches) and white matter connections (using deterministic tractography) when damaged impact semantic interference and its increase across cycles when repeatedly producing and understanding words in 15 speakers with varying lexical-semantic deficits from left hemisphere stroke. We found that damage to distinct brain regions, the posterior vs. anterior temporal lobe, was associated with semantic interference (collapsed across cycles) in naming and comprehension, respectively. Further, those with LIFG damage compared to those without exhibited marginally larger increases in semantic interference across cycles in naming but not comprehension. Lastly, the inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus, connecting the LIFG with posterior temporal lobe, related to semantic interference in naming, whereas the inferior longitudinal fasciculus, connecting posterior with anterior temporal regions related to semantic interference in comprehension. These neuroanatomical-behavioral findings have

show abstract

“…During the early processes of conceptual encoding and lexical selection, several closely related lexical concepts and the corresponding names may become simultaneously activated (e.g., when an object could either be called a sofa or couch), and the speaker must then select the most appropriate item amongst those that are active. Several models of lexical access propose that the process of lexical selection is competitive, such that the selection of a target is hindered by coactivation of competitors (e.g., Abdel Rahman and Melinger, 2009;Bloem and La Heij, 2003;Howard et al, 2006;Levelt et al, 1999;Piai et al, 2014;Roelofs, 1992Roelofs, , 2003Starreveld and La Heij, 1996). In other models, lexical selection is not seen to be a competitive process: A target is selected as soon as it has reached a threshold of activation regardless of the activation levels of other lexical items (see Finkbeiner and Caramazza, 2006;Mahon et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrophysiological evidence that inhibition supports lexical selection in picture naming

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inhibition N2Picture naming a b s t r a c tWe investigated the neural basis of inhibitory control during lexical selection. Participants overtly named pictures while response times (RTs) and event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded. The difficulty of lexical selection was manipulated by using object and action pictures with high name agreement (few response candidates) versus low name agreement (many response candidates). To assess the involvement of inhibition, we conducted delta plot analyses of naming RTs and examined the N2 component of the ERP. We found longer mean naming RTs and a larger N2 amplitude in the low relative to the high name agreement condition. For action naming we found a negative correlation between the slopes of the slowest delta segment and the difference in N2 amplitude between the low and high name agreement conditions. The converging behavioral and electrophysiological evidence suggests that selective inhibition is engaged to reduce competition during lexical selection in picture naming.

show abstract

Cumulative semantic inhibition in picture naming: experimental and computational studies

Cited by 347 publications

References 36 publications

A perfusion fMRI investigation of thematic and categorical context effects in the spoken production of object names

A perfusion fMRI investigation of thematic and categorical context effects in the spoken production of object names

Distinct loci of lexical and semantic access deficits in aphasia: Evidence from voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping and diffusion tensor imaging

Electrophysiological evidence that inhibition supports lexical selection in picture naming

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About