Localizing semantic interference from distractor sounds in picture naming: A dual-task study

Abstract

In this study we explored the locus of semantic interference in a novel picture-sound interference task in which participants name pictures while ignoring environmental distractor sounds. In a previous study using this task (Mädebach, Wöhner, Kieseler, & Jescheniak, in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 1629-1646, 2017), we showed that semantically related distractor sounds (e.g., BARKING) interfere with a picture-naming response (e.g., "horse") more strongly than unrelated distractor sounds do (e.g., DRUMMING). In the experiment reported here, we employed the psychological refractory period (PRP) approach to explore the locus of this effect. We combined a geometric form classification task (square vs. circle; Task 1) with the picture-sound interference task (Task 2). The stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between the tasks was systematically varied (0 vs. 500 ms). There were three central findings. First, the semantic interference effect from distractor sounds was replicated. Second, picture naming (in Task 2) was slower with the short than with the long task SOA. Third, both effects were additive-that is, the semantic interference effects were of similar magnitude at both task SOAs. This suggests that the interference arises during response selection or later stages, not during early perceptual processing. This finding corroborates the theory that semantic interference from distractor sounds reflects a competitive selection mechanism in word production.

Semantic interference is not modality specific: Evidence from sound naming with distractor pictures

“…Therefore, if semantic context effects in picture naming reflect general (amodal) semantic-lexical selection processes, the same effects should also be obtained in sound naming. Specifically, we would expect facilitation in the congruent compared with the unrelated condition and interference in the semantic compared with the unrelated condition as this would parallel the corresponding effects observed in picture naming studies with distractor words, distractor sounds, and distractor pictures (Glaser & Düngelhoff, 1984; Mädebach et al, 2017, 2018).…”

“…A number of studies using distractor pictures instead of distractor words (picture–picture interference task) have produced mixed results, with some studies showing semantic facilitation or no effect (e.g., Damian & Bowers, 2003; Geng et al, 2013; La Heij et al, 2003) and others showing semantic interference (e.g., Jescheniak et al, 2014; Matushanskaya et al, 2016; see also Aristei et al, 2012). A recent comprehensive series of picture–picture interference experiments from our lab, using different kinds of materials, stimulus configurations, and task cues, however, has showed semantic interference from distractor pictures quite consistently (Mädebach et al, 2018). Moreover, semantic interference in picture naming has also recently been shown with distractor sounds (Mädebach et al, 2017, 2018).…”

“…A recent comprehensive series of picture–picture interference experiments from our lab, using different kinds of materials, stimulus configurations, and task cues, however, has showed semantic interference from distractor pictures quite consistently (Mädebach et al, 2018). Moreover, semantic interference in picture naming has also recently been shown with distractor sounds (Mädebach et al, 2017, 2018). These observations are at odds with the idea that semantic interference is confined to picture naming with distractor words.…”

The time course of colour congruency effects in picture naming

“…This mechanism has been described by, among others, Abdel Rahman and Melinger (2009b), and is compatible with both competitive and non-competitive accounts of lexical access (cf. Geng, Kirchgessner, & Schnur, 2013;Mädebach, Kieseler, & Jescheniak, 2017). An alternative explanation for the presence of a colour congruency effect with verbal primes and its absence with colour box primes was suggested by one reviewer: There is neuropsychological evidence that object colour knowledge representations consist of two distinct codes, a visual and a verbal code (Tanaka, Weiskopf, & Williams, 2001; for studies supporting this distinction see Beauvois &Saillant, 1985, andHart Jr &Gordon, 1992), the latter having a stronger influence on object naming (Zannino et al, 2010).…”

Semantic interference is not modality specific: Evidence from sound naming with distractor pictures

“…A recent comprehensive series of picture-picture interference experiments from our lab, using different kinds of materials, stimulus configurations, and task cues, however, has showed semantic interference from distractor pictures quite consistently (Mädebach, Wöhner, & Jescheniak, 2018). Moreover, semantic interference in picture naming has also recently been shown with distractor sounds (Mädebach, Wöhner, Kieseler, & Jescheniak, 2017;Mädebach, Kieseler, & Jescheniak, 2018). These observations are at odds with the idea that semantic interference is confined to picture naming with distractor words.…”