Is naming faces different from naming objects? Semantic interference in a face- and object-naming task

Abstract

A current debate regarding face and object naming concerns whether they are equally vulnerable to semantic interference. Although some studies have shown similar patterns of interference, others have revealed different effects for faces and objects. In Experiment 1, we compared face naming to object naming when exemplars were presented in a semantically homogeneous context (grouped by their category) or in a semantically heterogeneous context (mixed) across four cycles. The data revealed significant slowing for both face and object naming in the homogeneous context. This semantic interference was explained as being due to lexical competition from the conceptual activation of category members. When focusing on the first cycle, a facilitation effect for objects but not for faces appeared. This result permits us to explain the previously observed discrepancies between face and object naming. Experiment 2 was identical to Experiment 1, with the exception that half of the stimuli were presented as face/object names for reading. Semantic interference was present for both face and object naming, suggesting that faces and objects behave similarly during naming. Interestingly, during reading, semantic interference was observed for face names but not for object names. This pattern is consistent with previous assumptions proposing the activation of a person identity during face name reading.

Interference resolution in face perception and name retrieval

“…Given the fact that RIF depends on competition, our results are in line with data showing semantic competition (Brédart & Valentine, 1992;Darling & Valentine, 2005;Marful, Paolieri, & Bajo, 2014) by showing not only interference in face naming, but also that this interference is solved by means of inhibitory mechanisms. Furthermore, these data support models of facial recognition proposing that competition can arise at several levels of representation (Brédart et al, 1995;Bruce & Young, 1986;Burton et al, 1990Burton et al, , 1999.…”

The Role of Task-Specific Response Strategies in Blocked-Cyclic Naming

“…Studies using the blocked-cyclic naming paradigm differ with respect to the presentation of lists to participants. While some have used a random (Schnur et al, 2006) or an alternating order (e.g., Belke et al, 2005b), others feature a blocked presentation of lists by contexts (e.g., Abdel Rahman and Melinger, 2007; Crowther and Martin, 2014; Marful et al, 2014). …”

The modulating effect of education on semantic interference during healthy aging

“…Proper name retrieval appears to be more complex in comparison to object name retrieval. In fact, compared to object name retrieval, proper name retrieval is slower and more error prone (e.g., [ 27 , 32 ]). To explain the causes for these face-naming difficulties, Fogler and James [ 33 ] pointed out the existence of several characteristics that could make this category of words more complex than the rest, amongst which are their lower frequency, lower imaginability, and phonological complexity.…”

“…However, both the effect of aging and the effect of proper name retrieval in this paradigm have been much less studied and, to the best of our knowledge, the joint effects of aging and face naming have never been explored. Thus, with respect to face naming in the semantic-blocking paradigm, Marful et al [ 32 ] found that semantic interference was present for both faces (proper name retrieval) and objects (common name retrieval), suggesting that semantic information is processed in similar ways for both types of stimuli during this task. Regarding aging, the few studies using semantic blocking have yielded contrasting results [ 52 – 54 ].…”