Picture-word interference and the response-exclusion hypothesis

Cortex

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 363-372

  Mulatti, Claudio ^a   Coltheart, Max ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

^b MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; DISTRACTIBILITY; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HUMAN; PHONETICS; PICTURE WORD INTERFERENCE TEST; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; RESPONSE EXCLUSION HYPOTHESIS; RESPONSE TIME; SEMANTICS; VERBALIZATION; VISUAL STIMULATION; WORD RECOGNITION;

ATTENTION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; MENTAL PROCESSES; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; SPEECH; STROOP TEST;

EID: 84856445123     PISSN: 00109452     EISSN: 19738102     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.04.025     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Abdel Rahman R., Aristei S. Now you see it... and now again: Semantic interference reflects lexical competition in speech production with and without articulation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2010, 17(5):657-661.
2. Balota D.A., Chumbley J.I. Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1984, 10(3):340-357.
3. Becker C.A. Allocation of attention during visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1976, 2(4):556-566.
4. Besner D. Basic decoding components in reading: Two dissociable feature extraction processes. Canadian Journal of Psychology 1983, 37(3):492-538.
5. Caramazza A. How many levels of processing are there in lexical access?. Cognitive Neuropsychology 1997, 14(1):177-208.
6. Coltheart M., Rastle K., Perry C., Langdon R., Ziegler J. DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review 2001, 108(1):204-256.
7. 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(4):878-891.
8. 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 and Review 2011, 18(1):116-122.
9. Dyer F.N. The Stroop phenomenon and its use in the study of perceptual, cognitive, and response processes. Memory and Cognition 1973, 1:106-120.
10. 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(6):790-796.
11. Finkbeiner M., Caramazza A. Lexical selection is not a competitive process: A reply to La Heij etal. (2006). Cortex 2006, 42:1032-1035.
12. Forster K.I., Chambers S.M. Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1973, 12:627-635.
13. Frederiksen J.R., Kroll J.F. Spelling and sound: Approaches to the internal lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1976, 2:361-379.
14. Glaser W.R., Düngelhoff F.J. The time course of picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1984, 10(5):640-654.
15. Grainger J., Jacobs A.M. Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review 1996, 103(3):518-565.
16. Janssen N., Schrim W., Mahon B.Z., Caramazza A. Semantic interference is a delayed naming task: Evidence for the response exclusion hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2008, 34(1):249-256.
17. Levelt W.J.M., Roelofs A., Meyer A.S. A theory of lexical accessinspeech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1999, 22(1):1-75.
18. Lupker S.J. The semantic nature of response competition in the picture-word interference task. Memory and Cognition 1979, 7(6):485-495.
19. Mädebach A., Oppermann F., Hantsch A., Curda C., Jescheniak J.D. Is there semantic interference in delayed naming?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2011, 37(2):522-538.
20. Mahon Z.B., Costa A., Peterson R., Vargas K.A., Caramazza A. 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 2007, 33(3):503-535.
21. Mayall K., Humphreys G.W. Case mixing and the tasksensitivedisruption of lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1996, 22(2):278-294.
22. McCann R.S., Besner D. Reading pseudohomophones: Implications for models of pronunciation assembly and the locus of wordfrequency effects in naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1987, 13(1):14-24.
23. McClelland J.L., Rumelhart D.E. An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review 1981, 88(5):375-407.
24. 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(2):228-252.
25. Mortensen L., Meyer A.S., Humphreys G.W. Speech planning during multiple-object naming: Effects of ageing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2008, 61(8):1217-1238.
26. Morton J. Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review 1969, 76:165-178.
27. Murray W.S., Forster K.I. Serial mechanisms in lexical access:The rank hypothesis. Psychological Review 2004, 111(3):721-756.
28. Norris D. The Bayesian reader: Explaining word recognition as anoptimal Bayesian decision process. Psychological Review 2006, 113(2):327-357.
29. O'Malley S., Besner D. Reading aloud: Qualitative differences in the relation between stimulus quality and word frequency as a function of context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2008, 34(6):1400-1411.
30. Plaut D.C., McClelland J.L., Seidenberg M.S., Patterson K.E. Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review 1996, 103:56-115.
31. Potter M.C., Faulconer B.A. Time to understand pictures and words. Nature 1975, 253:437-438.
32. Reynolds M.G., Besner D. Neighborhood density, word frequency, and spelling-sound regularity effects in naming: Similarities and differences between skilled readers and the dual route cascaded computational model. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 2004, 58(1):13-31.
33. Rosinski R.R. Picture-word interference is semantically based. Child Development 1977, 48:643-647.
34. Schriefers H., Teruel E. Phonological facilitation in the production of two-word utterances. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 1999, 11(1):17-50.
35. Starreveld P., La Heij W. Semantic interference, orthographic facilitation, and their interaction in naming tasks. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1995, 21(3):686-698.
36. Starreveld P.A., La Heij W. Time-course analysis of semantic and orthographic context effects in picture naming. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1996, 22(4):896-918.