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

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 66, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 163-176

  Dhooge, Elisah ^a   Hartsuiker, Robert J ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Competitive model; Lexical selection; Picture word interference task; Pseudowords; Verbal self monitoring

Indexed keywords

EID: 81955164863     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.08.004     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Abdel Rahman R., Melinger A. When bees hamper the production of honey: Lexical interference from associates in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2007, 33:604-614.
2. Abdel Rahman R., Melinger A. Semantic context effects in language production: A swinging lexical network proposal and a review. Language and Cognitive Processes 2009, 24:713-734.
3. Alario F.X., Segui J., Ferrand L. Semantic and associative priming in picture naming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology 2000, 53A:741-764.
4. Baars B.J., Motley M.T., MacKay D.G. Output editing for lexical status in artificially elicited slips of the tongue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1975, 14:382-391.
5. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database. Philadelphia, PA (CD-ROM).
6. Baddeley A.D. Exploring the central executive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1996, 49A:5-28.
7. Baddeley A.D., Emslie H., Kolodny J., Duncan J. Random generation and the executive control of working memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1998, 51A:819-852.
8. Bates D.M. Linear mixed model implementation in lme4 2007, Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
9. Blackmer E.R., Mitton J.L. Theories of monitoring and the timing of repairs in spontaneous speech. Cognition 1991, 39:173-194.
10. Bloem I., LaHeij W. Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in word translation: Implications for models of lexical access in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 2003, 48:468-488.
11. Bloem I., van den Boogaard S., LaHeij W. Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in language production: Further evidence for the conceptual selection model of lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language 2004, 51:307-323.
12. Brocklehurst P.H., Corley M. Investigating the inner speech of people who stutter: Evidence for (and against) the covert repair theory. Journal of Communication Disorders 2011, 44:246-260.
13. Burt J.S. Why do non-color words interfere with color naming?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2002, 28:1019-1038.
14. Caramazza A. How many levels of processing are there in lexical access?. Cognitive Neuropsychology 1997, 14:177-208.
15. Caramazza A., Costa A. The semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm: Does the response set matter?. Cognition 2000, 75:B51-B64.
16. Catling J.C., Dent K., Johnston R.A., Balding R. Age of acquisition, word frequency and picture-word interference. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2010, 63:1304-1317.
17. Costa A., Alario F.X., Caramazza A. On the categorical nature of the semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2005, 12:125-131.
18. Damian M.F., Martin R.C. Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 1999, 25:345-361.
19. Dell G.S. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review 1986, 93:283-321.
20. Dhooge E., Hartsuiker R.J. The distractor frequency effect in picture-word interference: Evidence for response exclusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2010, 36:878-891.
21. Dhooge E., Hartsuiker R.J. How do speakers resist distraction? Evidence from a taboo picture-word interference task. Psychological Science 2011, 22:855-859.
22. Dhooge E., Hartsuiker R.J. The distractor frequency effect in a delayed picture-word interference task: Further evidence for a late locus of distractor exclusion. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2011, 18:116-122.
23. Duyck W., Anseel F., Szmalec A., Mestdagh P., Tavernier A., Hartsuiker R.J. Improving accuracy in detecting acoustic onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2008, 43:1317-1326.
24. Duyck W., Desmet T., Verbeke L., Bruysbaert M. WordGen: A tool for word selection and non-word generation in Dutch, German, English, and French. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers 2004, 36:488-499.
25. Finkbeiner M., Caramazza A. Now you see it, now you don't: On turning semantic interference into facilitation in a Stroop-like task. Cortex 2006, 42:790-796.
26. Ganuskchak L.Y., Schiller N.O. Effects of time pressure on verbal self-monitoring: An ERP study. Brain Research 2006, 1125:104-115.
27. Ghering W.J., Goss B., Coles M.G.H., Meyer D.E., Donchin E. A neural system for error detection and compensation. Psychological Science 1993, 4:385-390.
28. Hartsuiker R.J. Are speech error patterns affected by a monitoring bias?. Language and Cognitive Processes 2006, 21:856-891.
29. Hartsuiker R.J., Anton-Mendez I., Roelstraete B., Costa A. Spanish spoonerisms: A lexical bias effect in Spanish. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2006, 32:949-953.
30. Hartsuiker R.J., Corley M., Martensen H. The lexical bias effect is modulated by context but the standard monitoring account doesn't fly: Related reply to Baars et al. (1975). Journal of Memory and Language 2005, 52:58-70.
31. Hartsuiker R.J., Kolk H.H.J. Error monitoring in speech production: A computational test of the perceptual loop theory. Cognitive Psychology 2001, 42:113-157.
32. Huettig F., Hartsuiker R.J. Listening to yourself is like listening to others: External, but not internal, verbal self-monitoring is based on speech perception. Language and Cognitive Processes 2010, 25:347-374.
33. Humphreys, K. R. (2002). Lexical bias in speech errors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Campaign.
34. Janssen N., Schirm W., Mahon B.Z., Caramazza A. Semantic interference in a delayed naming task: Evidence for the response exclusion hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2008, 34:249-256.
35. Jou J., Harris R.J. The effect of divided attention on speech production. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 1992, 30:301-304.
36. Klein G.S. Semantic power measured through the interference of words with color-naming. American Journal of Psychology 1964, 77:576-588.
37. Lackner J.R., Tuller B.H. Role of efference monitoring in the detection of self-produced speech errors. Sentence processing 1979, 281-294. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. W.E. Cooper, E.C.T. Walker (Eds.).
38. Levelt W.J.M. Speaking: From intention to articulation 1989, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
39. Levelt W.M.J., Roelofs A., Meyer A.S. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 1999, 22:1-75.
40. Lupker S.J. The semantic nature of response competition in the picture-word interference task. Memory & Cognition 1979, 7:485-495.
41. Mahon B.Z., Costa A., Peterson R., Vargas K.A., Caramazza A. Lexical selection is not by competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2007, 33:503-533.
42. Miozzo M., Caramazza A. When more is less: A counterintuitive effect of distractor frequency in picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2003, 132:228-252.
43. Motley M.T., Camden C.T., Baars B.J. Covert formulation and editing of anomalies in speech production: Evidence from experimentally elicited slips of the tongue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1982, 21:578-594.
44. Mulatti, C., & Coltheart, M. (in press). Picture-word interference and the response-exclusion hypothesis. Cortex.
45. Nooteboom S. Lexical bias revisited: Detecting, rejecting and repairing speech errors in inner speech. Speech Communications 2005, 47:43-58.
46. Nooteboom S. Listening to oneself: Monitoring speech production. Phonological encoding and monitoring in normal and pathological speech 2005, Psychology Press, Hove. R.J. Hartsuiker, R. Bastiaanse, A. Postma, F.N.K. Wijnen (Eds.).
47. Nooteboom S., Quené H. Self-monitoring and feedback: A new attempt to find the main cause of lexical bias in phonological speech errors. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 58:837-861.
48. Nozari N., Dell G.S. More on lexical bias: How efficient can a lexical editor be?. Journal of Memory and Language 2009, 60:291-307.
49. Nozari N., Dell G.S., Schwartz M.F. Is comprehension necessary for error detection? A conflict-based account of monitoring in speech production. Cognitive Psychology 2011, 63:1-33.
50. Oomen C.C.E., Postma A. Limitations in processing resources and speech monitoring. Language and Cognitive Processes 2002, 17:163-184.
51. Oppenheim G.M., Dell G.S. Inner speech slips exhibit lexical bias, but not the phonetic similarity effect. Cognition 2008, 106:528-537.
52. Oppenheim G.M., Dell G.S. Motor movement matters: The flexible abstractness of inner speech. Memory & Cognition 2010, 38:1147-1160.
53. Ozdemir R., Roelofs A., Levelt W.J.M. Perceptual uniqueness point effects in monitoring internal speech. Cognition 2007, 105:457-465.
54. Postma A. Detection of errors during speech production: A review of speech monitoring models. Cognition 2000, 77:97-131.
55. Postma A., Kolk H.H.J. The effects of noise masking and required accuracy on speech errors, disfluencies and self-repairs. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1992, 35:537-592.
56. Postma A., Kolk H.H.J. The covert repair hypothesis: Prearticulatory repair processes in normal and stuttered disfluencies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1993, 36:472-487.
57. Postma A., Noordanus C. Production and detection of speech errors in silent, mouthed, noise-masked, and normal auditory feedback speech. Language and Speech 1996, 39:375-392.
58. R Development Core Team (2009). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org.
59. Riès S., Janssen N., Dufau S., Alario F.-X., Burle B. General purpose monitoring during speech production. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2011, 23:1419-1436.
60. Roelofs A. A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition 1992, 42:107-142.
61. Roelofs A. Testing a non-decompositional theory of lemma retrieval in speaking: Retrieval of verbs. Cognition 1993, 47:59-87.
62. Roelofs A. The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition 1997, 64:249-284.
63. Roelofs A. Set size and repetition matter: Comment on Caramazza and Costa (2000). Cognition 2001, 80:283-290.
64. Roelofs A. Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: Modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. Psychological Review 2003, 110:88-125.
65. Roelofs A., Piai V., Schriefers H. Selective attention and distractor frequency in naming performance: Comment on Dhooge and Hartsuiker (2010). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2011, 37:1032-1038.
66. Rosinski R.R. Picture-word interference is semantically based. Child Development 1977, 48:643-647.
67. Rosinski R.R., Golinkoff R.M., Kukish K.S. Automatic semantic processing in a picture-word interference task. Child Development 1975, 26:247-253.
68. Schriefers H., Meyer A.S., Levelt W.J.M. Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production - Picture word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language 1990, 29:86-102.
69. Severens E., Janssen I., Kühn S., Brass M., Hartsuiker R.J. When the brain tames the tongue: Covert editing of inappropriate language. Psychophysiology 2011, 48:1252-1257.
70. Severens E., Van Lommel S., Ratinckx E., Hartsuiker R.J. Timed picture naming norms for 590 pictures in Dutch. Acta Psychologica 2005, 119:159-187.
71. Starreveld P.A., LaHeij W. Semantic interference, orthographic facilitation, and their interaction in naming tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1995, 21:686-698.
72. Starreveld P.A., LaHeij W. Word substitution errors in a speeded picture-word task. American Journal of Psychology 1999, 112:521-553.
73. Stevens M., Lammertyn J., Verbruggen F., Vandierendonck A. Tscope: A C library for programming cognitive experiments on the MS Windows platform. Behavior Research Methods 2006, 38:280-286.
74. Vigliocco G., Lauer M., Damian M.F., Levelt W.J.M. Semantic and syntactic forces in noun phrase production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2002, 28:46-58.
75. Vigliocco G., Vinson D.P., Lewis W., Garrett M.F. Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology 2004, 48:422-488.
76. Vigliocco G., Vinson D.P., Siri S. Semantic similarity and grammatical class in naming actions. Cognition 2005, 94:B91-B100.
77. Ye Z., Zhou X. Executive control in language processing. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 2009, 33:1168-1177.