Open Wide and Say “Blah!” Attentional Dynamics of Delayed Naming

Goldinger, Stephen D.; Azuma, Tamiko; Abramson, Marianne; Jain, Pushpam

doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2518

Cited by 32 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies that have used the delayed naming task have shown that the frequency effect disappears with delays longer than 800 ms (Jescheniak & Levelt, 1994;Savage, Bradley, & Forster, 1990; but see Goldinger, Azuma, Abramson, & Jain, 1997). On the basis of these studies we expected a frequency effect of the target pictures in the immediate but not in the delayed naming condition.…”

Section: The Response Exclusion Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 70%

Semantic interference in a delayed naming task: Evidence for the response exclusion hypothesis.

Janssen¹,

Schirm²,

Mahon³

et al. 2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2 experiments participants named pictures of common objects with superimposed distractor words. In one naming condition, the pictures and words were presented simultaneously on every trial, and participants produced the target response immediately. In the other naming condition, the presentation of the picture preceded the presentation of the distractor by 1,000 ms, and participants delayed production of their naming response until distractor word presentation. Within each naming condition, the distractor words were either semantic category coordinates of the target pictures or unrelated. Orthogonal to this manipulation of semantic relatedness, the frequency of the pictures' names was manipulated. The authors observed semantic interference effects in both the immediate and delayed naming conditions but a frequency effect only in the immediate naming condition. These data indicate that semantic interference can be observed when target picture naming latencies do not reflect the bottleneck at the level of lexical selection. In the context of other findings from the picture-word interference paradigm, the authors interpret these data as supporting the view that the semantic interference effect arises at a postlexical level of processing.Keywords semantic interference effect; lexical selection by competition; picture-word interference; delayed naming; response exclusion hypothesis A central question in language production research concerns the dynamical principles that govern the mechanism responsible for retrieving words from the mental lexicon. A widespread assumption in language production models is that lexical selection is a competitive process (e.g., La Heij, 1988;Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999;Roelofs, 2003). The hypothesis of lexical selection by competition proposes that the time it takes to select a NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript target word increases as the levels of activation of nontarget words increase. The primary source of empirical evidence cited in support of lexical selection by competition is the semantic interference effect (e.g., Lupker, 1979;Rosinski, 1977): Naming a picture of an object (e.g., CAR) is slower in the context of a semantic category coordinate distractor word (e.g., truck) compared to an unrelated distractor word (e.g., An alternative to lexical selection by competition is the view that the highest activated lexical node is selected, without regard to the levels of activation of nontarget lexical nodes (e.g., Caramazza, 1997;Dell, 1986;Stemberger, 1985). 2 If one adopted such a model of lexical selection then the range of semantic facilitation effects that have been reported in the literature would follow as a natural consequence (Costa et al., 2005;Finkbeiner & Caramazza, 2006;Mahon et al., 2007). Specifically, such semantic facilitation effects would arise as a result of semantic priming between distractor words and target pictures. However, if one assumed that the semantic facilitation effects arise during lexical selecti...

show abstract

Section: The Response Exclusion Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 70%

Semantic interference in a delayed naming task: Evidence for the response exclusion hypothesis.

Janssen¹,

Schirm²,

Mahon³

et al. 2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This secondary task allowed us to examine the effects of word frequency when production was equated. In a previous experiment of this type, Goldinger et al (1997) observed that participants were faster to read HF words aloud, relative to LF words. We did not observe this effect.…”

Section: Eye-tracking and Pupillometry: Are The Eyes A Window On Memomentioning

confidence: 91%

Your Effort Is Showing! Pupil Dilation Reveals Memory Heuristics

Papesh¹,

Goldinger²

2011

Constructions of Remembering and Metacognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, in delayednaming tasks in which participants are given an external cue to respond, frequency effects are sometimes, although not always, found (e.g., the effect was reported by Chumbley, 1985, andGoldinger, Azuma, Abramson, &Jain, 1997, but not by Forster & Chambers, 1973, or McRae, Jared, & Seidenberg, 1990. Effects of word frequency in delayed naming are presumed to be due to articulatory differences, rather than to differences in gathering information about the phonological code of the item, and these types of effects certainly could appear in our internal-timing condition.…”

Section: The Present Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time perception and word recognition: An elaboration of the time-criterion account

Taylor

Lupker

2006

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Past research suggests that a time criterion guides responding in speeded word recognition tasks. The time-criterion account has been challenged, however, because it incorrectly predicts equivalent latencies for stimuli of differing difficulty when those stimuli are presented in the same trial block. By requiring participants to perform a lexical decision or naming task but to respond only once they had estimated that 1 sec had elapsed, we investigated the idea that stimulus difficulty effects in response latency might be at least partially due to time perception processes. Consistent with this idea, the participants produced shorter estimates of 1-sec intervals when processing easier stimuli (i.e., time seemed to pass faster when easier stimuli were processed). The implication is that understanding speeded word recognition performance will require looking beyond processes involved in acquiring information about the presented stimulus and examining more general response processes.

show abstract

Open Wide and Say “Blah!” Attentional Dynamics of Delayed Naming

Cited by 32 publications

References 28 publications

Semantic interference in a delayed naming task: Evidence for the response exclusion hypothesis.

Semantic interference in a delayed naming task: Evidence for the response exclusion hypothesis.

Your Effort Is Showing! Pupil Dilation Reveals Memory Heuristics

Time perception and word recognition: An elaboration of the time-criterion account

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About