How familiarization and repetition modulate the picture naming network

Abstract

A common strategy to reveal the components of the speech production network is to use psycholinguistic manipulations previously tested in behavioral protocols. This often disregards how implementation aspects that are nonessential for interpreting behavior may affect the neural response. We compared the electrophysiological (EEG) signature of two popular picture naming protocols involving either unfamiliar pictures without repetitions or repeated familiar pictures. We observed significant semantic interference effects in behavior but not in the EEG, contrary to some previous findings. Remarkably, the two protocols elicited clearly distinct EEG responses. These were not due to naming latency differences nor did they reflect a homogeneous modulation of amplitude over the trial time-window. The effect of protocol is attributed to the familiarization induced by the first encounter with the materials. Picture naming processes can be substantially modulated by specific protocol requirements controlled by familiarity and, to a much lesser degree, the repetition of materials.

Facilitation and interference in naming: A consequence of the same learning process?

“…Contrary to Belke (2008), working memory load did not change the magnitude of the semantic interference effect in continuous naming (Belke & Stielow, 2013). Thus, a possible explanation for why semantic interference effects did not correlate between blocked cyclic and continuous naming is that by virtue of repeating items, the blocked cyclic naming task promotes the recruitment of executive top-down strategies while continuous naming does not, although see Llorens, Trebuchon, Ries, Liegeois-Chauvel, & Alario (2014). In sum, our results demonstrate that the semantic interference in naming elicited in blocked cyclic and continuous naming is different, but the results do not address the source of this difference.…”

Response retrieval and motor planning during typing

“…Unfortunately, we could not find any trace of semantic interference in the EEG data (whether with ERP, beta band power analyses, or other ad-hoc procedures, see Appendix 2). This is not the first time semantic effects are hard to find on scalp EEG signal recorded during word production tasks, despite significant behavioral results (Blackford, Holcomb, Grainger, & Kuperberg, 2012;Llorens, Trébuchon, Riès, Liégeois-Chauvel, & Alario, 2014); we also note that there are contradictory reports using similar protocols (Costa, Strijkers, Martin, & Thierry, 2009;Janssen et al, 2011Janssen et al, , 2014. Such semantic effects appear more difficult to track in word production than word comprehension and reading (Kutas & Federmeier, 2011).…”

Sequential processing during noun phrase production

“…1 shows the stimulus-locked grand-averaged ERPs at selected electrodes, and corresponding topographies. The N1/P2 components were clearly visible and were followed by a broader component, as is typically observed in stimulus-locked activity for the picture naming task (e.g., Laganaro, 2014;Llorens, Trébuchon, Riès, Liégeois-Chauvel, & Alario, 2014).…”