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

Abstract

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...

Feature overlap slows lexical selection: Evidence from the picture–word interference paradigm

“…For example, Janssen, Schirm, Mahon, and Caramazza (2008) reported a semantic interference effect in delayed naming using a novel task-switching version of the PWI paradigm. Subsequent attempts to demonstrate similar interference were unsuccessful (Galak, 2012;Madebach, Oppermann, Hantsch, Curda, & Jescheniak, 2011;Piai, Roelofs, & Schriefers, 2011).…”

Semantic picture–word interference is a postperceptual effect

“…When preparing to name a picture and then deciding whether or not to read a word, the semantic interference effect appears upon immediate naming (Janssen, Schirm, Mahon, & Caramazza, 2008), but also disappears under the same circumstances (Mädebach, Oppermann, Hantsch, Curda, & Jescheniak, 2011;Piai, Roelofs, & Schriefers, 2011). Other reported variable interference effects have been attributed to the processing speed of the distractor words (van Maanen & van Rijn, 2010).…”

Lexical selection and verbal self-monitoring: Effects of lexicality, context, and time pressure in picture-word interference

“…The idea that the monitor is involved in the PWI task bears strong resemblance to the response exclusion hypothesis (e.g., Dhooge & Hartsuiker, 2010;2011a-b;Finkbeiner & Caramazza, 2006;Janssen, Schirm, Mahon, & Caramazza, 2008;Mahon et al, 2007;Miozzo & Caramazza, 2003). The response exclusion hypothesis assumes that speakers first spuriously form a response to the distractor word which then needs to be discarded from a response buffer, as words have a privileged access to the articulators.…”