Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-9t7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-05T23:16:24.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transforming semantic interference into facilitation in a picture–word interference task

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2015

QINGFANG ZHANG ,
CHEN FENG ,
XUEBING ZHU  and
CHENG WANG
QINGFANG ZHANG*
Affiliation:
Renmin University of China and Chinese Academy of Sciences
CHEN FENG
Affiliation:
Chinese Academy of Sciences
XUEBING ZHU
Affiliation:
Chinese Academy of Sciences
CHENG WANG
Affiliation:
Chinese Academy of Sciences
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Qingfang Zhang, Department of Psychology, Renmin University of China, 59 Zhongguancun Street, Haidian District, Beijing 100872, China. E-mail: qingfang.zhang@ruc.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A number of studies that observed semantic facilitation in a picture–word interference task questioned the hypothesis that lexical selection during speech production is a competitive process. Semantic facilitation effects are typically observed when context words and target names do not belong to the same semantic category level. In the experiments reported in this article, we used a picture–word interference task with basic-level context words and basic-level naming (i.e., the context word is dog, and the target name is cat) to investigate semantic context effects. We observed a reversal of semantic context effect: context words that induce semantic interference when stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) are –100 and 0 ms and induce semantic facilitation at large negative SOA values (from –1000 to –400 ms, in steps of 200 ms). At the empirical level, our data suggest that manipulating SOA can reverse the polarity of the semantic context effect. Our analysis demonstrates that the conceptual selection model provides the most straightforward way to account for the reported polarity shift and the different SOA ranges covered by the semantic interference effect and the semantic facilitation effect.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 37 , Issue 5 , September 2016 , pp. 1025 - 1049
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Alario, F. X., Segui, J., & Ferrand, I. (2000). Semantic and associative priming in picture naming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 741–764.Google Scholar
Becker, S., Moscovitch, M., Behrmann, M., & Joordens, S. (1997). Long-term semantic priming: A computational account and empirical evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1059–1082.Google Scholar
Bi, Y., Xu, Y., & Caramazza, A. (2009). Orthographic and phonological effects in the picture–word interference paradigm: Evidence from a logographic language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 637–658.Google Scholar
Bloem, I., & La Heij, W. (2003). Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in word translation: Implications for models of lexical access in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 468–488.Google Scholar
Bloem, I., van den Boogaard, S., & La Heij, W. (2004). Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in language production: Further evidence for the conceptual selection model of lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chinese Linguistic Data Consortium. (2003). 现代汉语通用词表 [Chinese Lexicon] (CLDC-LAC-2003-01). Beijing: Tsinghua University State Key Laboratory of Intelligent Technology and Systems and Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Automation.Google Scholar
Costa, A., Alario, F.-X., & Caramazza, A. (2005). On the categorical nature of the semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 125–131.Google Scholar
Damian, M. F., & Martin, R. C. (1999). Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25, 345–361.Google ScholarPubMed
Dell, G. S., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Saffran, E. M., & Gagnon, D. A. (1997). Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychological Review, 104, 801–838.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dhooge, E., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2010). The distractor frequency effect in picture-word interference: Evidence for response exclusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 878–891.Google Scholar
Dhooge, E., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2011). The distractor frequency effect in a delayed picture-word interference task: Further evidence for a late locus of distractor exclusion. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18, 116–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, M., & Caramazza, A. (2006). Now you see it, now you don't: On turning semantic interference into facilitation in a Stroop-like task. Cortex, 42, 790–796.Google Scholar
Glaser, W. R., & Düngelhoff, F. J. (1984). The time course of picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 640–654.Google Scholar
Glaser, W. R., & Glaser, M. O. (1989). Context effects on Stroop-like word and picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 13–42.Google Scholar
Janssen, N., Schirm, W., Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2008). Semantic interference in a delayed naming task: Evidence for the response exclusion hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 249–256.Google Scholar
La Heij, W. (1988). Components of Stroop-like interference in picture naming. Memory and Cognition, 16, 400–410.Google Scholar
La Heij, W., Dirkx, J., & Kramer, P. (1990). Categorical interference and associative priming in picture naming. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 511–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.Google Scholar
Lupker, S. J. (1979). The semantic nature of response competition in the picture-word interference task. Memory and Cognition, 7, 485–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupker, S. J., & Katz, A. N. (1981). Input, decision, and response factors in picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 269–282.Google Scholar
Mahon, B. Z., Costa, A., Peterson, R., Vargas, K. A., & Caramazza, A. (2007). Lexical selection is not by competition: A reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 503–535.Google Scholar
Mahon, B. Z., Garcea, F. E., & Navarrete, E. (2012). Picture-word interference and the response exclusion hypothesis: A response to Mulatti and Coltheart. Cortex, 48, 373–377.Google Scholar
Mahon, B. Z., & Navarrete, E. (2014). The critical difference: Semantic interference and facilitation in speech production. A response to Roelofs and Piai. Cortex, 52, 123–127.Google Scholar
Melinger, A., & Koenig, J.-P. (2007). Part-of-speech persistence: The influence of part-of-speech information on lexical processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 472–489.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. S., & Schriefers, H. (1991). Phonological facilitation in picture-word interference experiments: Effects of stimulus onset asynchrony and types of interfering stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 1146–1160.Google Scholar
Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (2003). When more is less: A counterintuitive effect of distractor frequency in picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 228–252.Google Scholar
Mulatti, C., & Coltheart, M. (2012). Picture-word interference and the response-exclusion hypothesis. Cortex, 48, 363–372.Google Scholar
Mulatti, C., & Coltheart, M. (2014). Color naming of colored non-color words and the response-exclusion hypothesis: A comment on Mahon et al. and on Roelofs and Piai. Cortex, 52, 120–122.Google Scholar
Pechmann, T., Garrett, M., & Zerbst, D. (2004). The time course of recovery for grammatical category information during lexical processing for syntactic construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 30, 723–728.Google ScholarPubMed
Rapp, B., & Goldrick, M. (2000). Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production. Psychological Review, 107, 460–499.Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L, III. (1990). Implicit memory: Retention without remembering. American Psychologist, 45, 1043–1056.Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L., III, & McDermott, K. B. (1993). Implicit memory in normal human subjects. In Spinnler, H. & Boller, F. (Eds.), Handbook of neuropsychology (Vol. 8, pp. 63–131). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42, 107–142.Google Scholar
Roelofs, A. (2002). How do bilinguals control their use of languages? Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 5, 214–215.Google Scholar
Roelofs, A. (2006). Context effects of pictures and words in naming objects, reading words, and generating simple phrases. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1764–1784.Google Scholar
Roelofs, A. (2007). On the modelling of spoken word planning: Rejoinder to La Heij, Starreveld, and Kuipers (2007). Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 1281–1286.Google Scholar
Roelofs, A., & Piai, V. (2013). Associative facilitation in the Stroop task: Comment on Mahon et al. (2012). Cortex, 49, 1767–1769.Google Scholar
Roelofs, A., & Piai, V. (in press). Aspects of competition in word production: Reply to Mahon and Navarette. Cortex.Google Scholar
Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1990). Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 86–102.Google Scholar
Simon, J. R., & Sudalaimuthu, P. (1979). Effects of S-R mapping and response modality on performance in a Stroop Task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 176–187.Google Scholar
Starreveld, P. A., & La Heij, W. (1995). Semantic interference, orthographic facilitation, and their interaction in naming tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 686–698.Google Scholar
Starreveld, P. A., & La Heij, W. (1996). Time-course analysis of semantic and orthographic context effects in picture naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 896–918.Google Scholar
Zhang, Q., Chen, H.-C., Weekes, B. S., & Yang, Y. (2009). Independent effects of orthographic and phonological facilitation on spoken word production in Mandarin. Language and Speech, 52, 113–126.Google Scholar
Zhang, Q., & Weekes, B. S. (2009). Orthographic facilitation effects on spoken word production: Evidence from Chinese. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 1082–1096.Google Scholar
Zhang, Q., & Yang, Y. (2003). The determiners of picture naming latency [in Chinese]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35, 447–454.Google Scholar
Zhao, H., La Heij, W., & Schiller, N. O. (2012). Orthographic and phonological facilitation in speech production: New evidence from picture naming in Chinese. Acta Psychologica, 139, 272–280.Google Scholar