Congruency effects in conceptualizing for speech

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 65, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 2155-2168

  Kuipers, Jan Rouke ^a   La Heij, Wido ^b  

^a BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Conceptual preparation; Congruency; Context effects; Word categorization; Word production

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS; SPEECH; STUDENT; UNIVERSITY;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTENTION; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS; SPEECH; STUDENTS; UNIVERSITIES; VOCABULARY;

EID: 84867848711     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2012.684693     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Bloem, I. and 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.
2. Bloem, I., van den Boogaard, S. and 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.
3. Burnage, G. 1990. CELEX: A guide for users Nijmegen, The Netherlands: CELEX
4. Caramazza, A. and Costa, A. 2000. The semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm: Does the response set matter?. Cognition, 75: 51-64.
5. Caramazza, A. and Costa, A. 2001. Set size and repetition in the picture-word interference paradigm: Implications for models of naming. Cognition, 80: 291-298.
6. Costa, A., Mahon, B., Savova, V. and Caramazza, A. 2003. Level of categorisation effect: A novel effect in the picture-word paradigm. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18: 205-233.
7. De Vries, K. L. M. 1986. Vertrouwdheid van woorden en woordherkenning [Familiarity of words and word recognition]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 41: 295-304.
8. Dhooge, E. and 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 & Review, 18: 116-122.
9. Finkbeiner, M. and Caramazza, A. 2006. Now you see it, now you don't: On turning semantic interference into semantic facilitation in a Stroop-like task. Cortex, 42: 790-796.
10. Glaser, W. R. 1992. Picture naming. Cognition, 42: 61-105.
11. Glaser, W. R. and Düngelhoff, F. J. 1984. The time course of picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10: 640-654.
12. Hantsch, A., Jescheniak, J. D. and Schriefers, H. 2009. Distractor modality can turn semantic interference into semantic facilitation in the picture-word interference task: Implications for theories of lexical access in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 35: 1443-1453.
13. Humphreys, G. W., Lloyd-Jones, T. J. and Fias, W. 1995. Semantic interference effects on naming using a postcue procedure: Tapping the links between semantics and phonology with pictures and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 21: 961-980.
14. Jescheniak, J. D., Oppermann, F., Hantsch, A., Wagner, V., Madebach, A. and Schriefers, H. 2009. Do perceived context pictures automatically activate their phonological code?. Experimental Psychology, 56: 56-65.
15. Jonides, J. and Mack, R. 1984. On the cost and benefit of cost and benefit. Psychological Bulletin, 96: 29-44.
16. Kuipers, J. R. and La Heij, W. 2008. Semantic facilitation in category and action naming: Testing the message-congruency account. Journal of Memory and Language, 58: 123-139.
17. Kuipers, J. R., La Heij, W. and Costa, A. 2006. A further look at semantic context effects in language production: The role of response congruency. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21: 892-919.
18. La Heij, W. 1988. Components of Stroop-like interference in picture naming. Memory & Cognition, 16: 400-410.
19. La Heij, W., Starreveld, P. A. and Kuipers, J. R. 2006. In defense of the lexical-competition account of picture-word interference: A comment on Finkbeiner and Caramazza (2006). Cortex, 42: 1028-1031.
20. Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A. and Meyer, A. S. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22: 1-75.
22. Loftus, G. R. and Masson, M. E. J. 1994. Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1: 476-490.
23. Lupker, S. J. and Katz, A. N. 1981. Input, decision, and response factors in picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7: 269-282.
24. MacLeod, C. M. 1991. Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2): 163-203.
25. Mahon, B., Costa, A., Peterson, R., Vargas, R. A. and Caramazza, A. 2007. Lexical selection is not competition: A reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 33: 503-535.
26. Miller, J. 1982. Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals. Cognitive Psychology, 14: 247-279.
27. Navarrete, E. and Costa, A. 2009. The distractor picture paradox in speech production: Evidence from the word translation task. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38: 527-547.
28. Schneider, W. 1995. Micro Experimental Laboratory [Computer hardware]. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools
29. Schneider, W., Eschman, A. and Zuccolotto, A. 2002. E-Prime reference guide, Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
30. Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. S. and 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.
31. Seymour, E. H. 1977. Conceptual encoding and locus of the Stroop effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29: 245-265.
32. Snodgrass, J. G. and Vanderwart, M. 1980. A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6: 174-215.
33. Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., Damian, M. F., Pérez, M. A., Bowers, J. S. and Marin, J. 2009. Name-picture verification as a control measure for object naming: A task analysis and norms for a large set of pictures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62: 1581-1597.
34. Starreveld, P. A. and La Heij, W. 1996. Time-course analysis of semantic and orthographic context effects in picture naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 22: 896-918.
35. Starreveld, P. A., La Heij, W. and Verdonschot, R. in press. Time course analysis of the effects of distractor frequency and categorical relatedness in picture naming: An evaluation of the response exclusion account. Language and Cognitive Processes, doi:10.1080/01690965.2011.608026
36. Wingfield, A. 1968. Effects of frequency on identification and naming of objects. American Journal of Psychology, 81: 226-234.