The roles of shared vs. distinctive conceptual features in lexical access

Abstract

Contemporary models of spoken word production assume conceptual feature sharing determines the speed with which objects are named in categorically-related contexts. However, statistical models of concept representation have also identified a role for feature distinctiveness, i.e., features that identify a single concept and serve to distinguish it quickly from other similar concepts. In three experiments we investigated whether distinctive features might explain reports of counter-intuitive semantic facilitation effects in the picture word interference (PWI) paradigm. In Experiment 1, categorically-related distractors matched in terms of semantic similarity ratings (e.g., zebra and pony) and manipulated with respect to feature distinctiveness (e.g., a zebra has stripes unlike other equine species) elicited interference effects of comparable magnitude. Experiments 2 and 3 investigated the role of feature distinctiveness with respect to reports of facilitated naming with part-whole distractor-target relations (e.g., a hump is a distinguishing part of a CAMEL, whereas knee is not, vs. an unrelated part such as plug). Related part distractors did not influence target picture naming latencies significantly when the part denoted by the related distractor was not visible in the target picture (whether distinctive or not; Experiment 2). When the part denoted by the related distractor was visible in the target picture, non-distinctive part distractors slowed target naming significantly at SOA of −150 ms (Experiment 3). Thus, our results show that semantic interference does occur for part-whole distractor-target relations in PWI, but only when distractors denote features shared with the target and other category exemplars. We discuss the implications of these results for some recently developed, novel accounts of lexical access in spoken word production.

Long-lasting semantic interference effects in object naming are not necessarily conceptually mediated

“…Recognizing a mammoth , for example, will involve accessing features common to the category of animals (and elephants in particular), in addition to distinguishing features (e.g., fur ) to support both a ‘living’ and an ‘old’ decision. All modern theories of conceptual organization assume that meaning computation involves access to both shared and distinguishing features ( Vigliocco et al, 2004 ; McRae et al, 2005 ; Vieth et al, 2014 ). Thus, it seems unlikely that the type of superordinate comparative judgment could be responsible for the different findings.…”

Semantic processing during language production: an update of the swinging lexical network

“…Therefore, the activation from target and distractor diverges across the semantic network and consequently no lexical cohort is generated. Without a strong lexical cohort, conceptual facilitation typically dominates (Abdel Rahman & Melinger, 2007;de Zubicaray, Hansen, et al, 2013; see also Vieth et al, 2014;Sailor & Brooks, 2008).…”

Can the humped animal's knee conceal its name? Commentary on: “The roles of shared vs. distinctive conceptual features in lexical access”

“…Vieth et al ( 2014 ) recently sought to clarify the role of feature distinctiveness in a picture-word interference (PWI) task. In Experiment 1, they employed categorically-related distractor-target pairs matched for semantic similarity, while manipulating distinctiveness of the distractor feature.…”