Article

Semantic distance effects on object and action naming.

Department of Psychology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1, UK.
Cognition (impact factor: 3.16). 11/2002; 85(3):B61-9.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Graded interference effects were tested in a naming task, in parallel for objects and actions. Participants named either object or action pictures presented in the context of other pictures (blocks) that were either semantically very similar, or somewhat semantically similar or semantically dissimilar. We found that naming latencies for both object and action words were modulated by the semantic similarity between the exemplars in each block, providing evidence in both domains of graded semantic effects.

0 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
27 Views
  • Source
    Article: Factors determining semantic facilitation and interference in the cyclic naming paradigm.
    Eduardo Navarrete, Paul Del Prato, Bradford Z Mahon
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The cyclic naming paradigm, in which participants are slower to name pictures blocked by semantic category than pictures in an unrelated context, offers a window into the dynamics of the mapping between lexical concepts and words. Here we provide evidence for the view that incremental adjustments to the connection weights from semantics to lexical items provides an elegant explanation of a range of observations within the cyclic naming paradigm. Our principal experimental manipulation is to vary the within-category semantic distance among items that must be named together in a block. In the first set of experiments we find that naming latencies are, if anything, faster for within-category semantically close blocks compared to within-category semantically far blocks, for the first presentation of items. This effect can be explained by the fact that there will be more spreading activation, and thus greater priming at the lexical level, for within-category semantically close blocks than within-category semantically far blocks. We test this explanation by inserting intervening filler items (geometric shapes), and show as predicted, that while intervening unrelated trials abolish short-lived semantic priming effects, the long-lag interference effect that is characteristic of this paradigm is unaffected. These data place new constraints on explanations of the cyclic naming effect, and related phenomena, within a model of language production.
    Frontiers in psychology. 01/2012; 3:38.
  • Article: The dark side of incremental learning: a model of cumulative semantic interference during lexical access in speech production.
    Gary M Oppenheim, Gary S Dell, Myrna F Schwartz
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Naming a picture of a dog primes the subsequent naming of a picture of a dog (repetition priming) and interferes with the subsequent naming of a picture of a cat (semantic interference). Behavioral studies suggest that these effects derive from persistent changes in the way that words are activated and selected for production, and some have claimed that the findings are only understandable by positing a competitive mechanism for lexical selection. We present a simple model of lexical retrieval in speech production that applies error-driven learning to its lexical activation network. This model naturally produces repetition priming and semantic interference effects. It predicts the major findings from several published experiments, demonstrating that these effects may arise from incremental learning. Furthermore, analysis of the model suggests that competition during lexical selection is not necessary for semantic interference if the learning process is itself competitive.
    Cognition 10/2009; 114(2):227-52. · 3.16 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Article: Distractor strength and selective attention in picture-naming performance.
    Vitória Piai, Ardi Roelofs, Herbert Schriefers
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Whereas it has long been assumed that competition plays a role in lexical selection in word production (e.g., Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999), recently Finkbeiner and Caramazza (2006) argued against the competition assumption on the basis of their observation that visible distractors yield semantic interference in picture naming, whereas masked distractors yield semantic facilitation. We examined an alternative account of these findings that preserves the competition assumption. According to this account, the interference and facilitation effects of distractor words reflect whether or not distractors are strong enough to exceed a threshold for entering the competition process. We report two experiments in which distractor strength was manipulated by means of coactivation and visibility. Naming performance was assessed in terms of mean response time (RT) and RT distributions. In Experiment 1, with low coactivation, semantic facilitation was obtained from clearly visible distractors, whereas poorly visible distractors yielded no semantic effect. In Experiment 2, with high coactivation, semantic interference was obtained from both clearly and poorly visible distractors. These findings support the competition threshold account of the polarity of semantic effects in naming.
    Memory & Cognition 12/2011; 40(4):614-27. · 1.92 Impact Factor

Show more

Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.

Keywords

actions
 
Graded interference effects
 
graded semantic effects
 
naming latencies
 
naming task
 
semantic similarity
 
semantically
 
semantically dissimilar
 
semantically similar