Inhibition of Spoken Word Production by Priming a Semantic Competitor

Wheeldon, Linda; Monsell, Stephen

doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1016

Cited by 176 publications

(258 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

242

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We hypothesize that the mechanisms generating and resolving semantic interference in naming fundamentally differ from those in word-picture matching comprehension tasks. Naming requires self-generated responses to target pictures that compete with previously named pictures for selection due to their relatively persistent increased activations levels (Howard et al, 2006;Damian & Als, 2006, Wheeldon & Monsell, 1994 especially in later cycles, generating significantly increasing relatedness effects as seen here and elsewhere (Biegler et al, 2008;Schnur et al, 2006Schnur et al, , 2009). …”

Section: Mechanism For Resolving Semantic Interferencementioning

confidence: 76%

“…However, this change was different between tasks (the 3-way interaction between Condition, Cycle, and Task was significant), where the increasing relatedness effect was significant in naming (Cycles 1-4: -3.2, -.3, 4.6, and 6.6%) but not word-picture matching (Cycles 1-4: 7.8, 7.5, 8.4, and 6.9%). 6 The pattern of significant relatedness but not increasing relatedness effects in comprehension at the group-level did not change with the inclusion of three patients only able to perform blocked-cyclic word-6 It is currently a subject of debate as to whether semantic interference in naming increases across cycles (e.g., Belke, 2013;Belke & Stielow, 2013) or if the increase reflects short-term conceptual facilitation in the first cycle which is later counteracted by long-lasting interference effects across remaining cycles (Damian & Als, 2005;Navarrete, Del Prato, & Mahon, 2012; see also Wheeldon & Monsell, 1994;cf. Oppenheim et al, 2010).…”

Section: Group Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Converging evidence is also seen in other paradigms which elicit semantic interference. For example, when naming a picture while ignoring a superimposed semantically related word (i.e., picture-word interference paradigm) or after having named a semantically related word prompted by its definition (i.e., competitor priming task, Wheeldon & Monsell, 1994), healthy subjects show BOLD activation of the mid MTG (de Zubicaray, Wilson, McMahon, & Muthiah, 2001; see also de Zubicaray, McMahon, & Howard, 2013) to posterior MTG (de Zubicaray, McMahon, Eastburn, & Pringle, 2006). These regions correspond to the mid to posterior MTG locus we found, which is also close, though slightly inferior, to the region corresponding to the relatedness effect in blocked-cyclic naming using fMRI in healthy subjects ).…”

Section: Locus Of Semantic Interferencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Mechanism For Resolving Semantic Interferencementioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Group Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Locus Of Semantic Interferencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

show abstract

“…This additional activation of the conceptually related distractor lemma will especially slow target lemma selection, for example because of lateral inhibition among coactive lemmas (e.g., Cutting & Ferreira, 1999) or because of a choice-ratio selection threshold (e.g., Roelofs, 1992). Support for this characterization comes from the fact that while conceptually related distractors slow production compared to unrelated distractors, the effect of associatively related distractors (sleep for bed) is much less consistent (Cutting & Ferreira, 1999;La Heij, Dirkx, & Kramer, 1990;Lupker, 1979;Wheeldon & Monsell, 1994). Furthermore, even though conceptually related distractors slow picture naming, they have no effect on the speed of object recognition (Humphreys, Lloyd-Jones, & Fias, 1995;Lupker, 1988;Schriefers et al, 1990).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Central bottleneck influences on the processing stages of word production.

Ferreira¹,

Pashler²

2002

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

155

273

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does producing a word slow performance of a concurrent, unrelated task? In 2 experiments, 108 participants named pictures and discriminated tones. In Experiment 1, pictures were named after cloze sentences; the durations of the word-production stages of lemma and phonological word-form selection were manipulated with high- and low-constraint cloze sentences and high- and low-frequency-name pictures, respectively. In Experiment 2, pictures were presented with simultaneous distractor words; the durations of lemma and phoneme selection were manipulated with conceptually and phonologically related distractors. All manipulations, except the phoneme-selection manipulation, delayed tone-discrimination responses as much as picture-naming responses. These results suggest that early word-production stages--lemma and phonological word-form selection--are subject to a central processing bottleneck, whereas the later stage--phoneme selection--is not.

show abstract

“…In this paradigm (adapted from Wheeldon & Monsell, 1994) a trial comprised five events. First, three descriptions were given to which participants should respond (in L1) using the correct definition (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphological priming survives a language switch

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tIn a long-lag morphological priming experiment, Dutch (L1)-English (L2) bilinguals were asked to name pictures and read aloud words. A design using non-switch blocks, consisting solely of Dutch stimuli, and switch-blocks, consisting of Dutch primes and targets with intervening English trials, was administered. Target picture naming was facilitated by morphologically related primes in both non-switch and switch blocks with equal magnitude. These results contrast some assumptions of sustained reactive inhibition models. However, models that do not assume bilinguals having to reactively suppress all activation of the non-target language can account for these data.

show abstract

Inhibition of Spoken Word Production by Priming a Semantic Competitor

Cited by 176 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

Central bottleneck influences on the processing stages of word production.

Morphological priming survives a language switch

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About