A rose by any other name is still a rose: A reinterpretation of Hantsch and Mädebach

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 701-716

  Navarrete, Eduardo ^a   Mahon, Bradford Z ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Lexical selection; Picture word interference; Response Exclusion Hypothesis; Speech production

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; EVOKED RESPONSE; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; IMAGERY; MENTAL FUNCTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECOGNITION; RESPONSE EXCLUSION HYPOTHESIS; ROSE; SEMANTICS; TULIP;

EID: 84879130697     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2012.682071     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Abdel Rahman, R. and Melinger, A. 2009a. Semantic context effects in language production: A swinging lexical network proposal and a review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24: 713 - 734.
2. Abdel Rahman, R. and Melinger, A. 2009b. Dismissing lexical competition does not make speaking any easier: A rejoinder to Mahon and Caramazza (2009). Language and Cognitive Processes, 24: 749 - 760.
3. Aristei, S., Melinger, A., & Abdel Rahman, R., 2010. Electrophysiological chronometry of semantic context effects in language production. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.
4. Bloem, I. and La Heij, W. 2003. Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in word translation: Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 48: 468 - 488.
5. 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.
6. Caramazza, A. 1997. How many levels of processing are there in lexical access?. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14: 177 - 208.
7. Costa, A., Alario, F.-X. and 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.
8. Costa, A., Mahon, B., Savova, V. and Caramazza, A. 2003. Level of categorization effect: A novel effect in the picture-word interference paradigm. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18: 205 - 233.
9. Costa, A., Miozzo, M. and Caramazza, A. 1999. Lexical selection in bilinguals: Do words in bilingual's lexicon compete for selection?. Journal of Memory and Language, 41: 365 - 397.
10. Costa, A., Strijkers, K., Martin, C. and Thierry, G. 2009. The time course of word retrieval revealed by event-related brain potentials during overt speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106: 21442 - 21446.
11. Damian, M. F. and Bowers, J. S. 2003. Locus of semantic interference in picture-word interference tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10: 111 - 117.
12. Damian, M. F. and Martin, R. C. 1999. Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25: 345 - 361.
13. Dell, G. S. 1986. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 3: 283 - 321.
14. Dhooge, E. and 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.
15. Dhooge, E. and Hartsuiker, R. J. 2011a. How do speakers resist distraction? Evidence from a taboo picture-word interference task. Psychological Science, 22: 855 - 859.
16. Dhooge, E. and Hartsuiker, R. J. 2011b. The distractor frequency effect in a delayed picture-word interference task: Further evidence for response exclusion. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18: 116 - 122.
17. Dhooge, E. and Hartsuiker, R. J. 2012. Lexical selection and verbal self-monitoring: Effects of lexicality, context, and time pressure in picture-word interference. Journal of Memory and Cognition, 1: 163 - 176.
18. Finkbeiner, M. and 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.
19. 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.
20. Glaser, W. R. and Glaser, M. O. 1989. Context effects on Stroop-like word and picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118: 13 - 42.
21. Hantsch, A., Jescheniak, J. D. and Schriefers, H. 2005. Semantic competition between hierarchically related words during speech planning. Memory and Cognition, 33: 984 - 1000.
22. 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, and Cognition, 35: 1443 - 1453.
23. Hantsch, A., & Mädebach, A. 2013. What does the articulatory output buffer know about alternative picture names? Evidence against the response-exclusion hypothesis. Language and Cognitive Process, 28, 684 - 700.
24. Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J. and de Jong, N. H. 2005. Semantic and phonological context effects in speech error repair. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 5: 921 - 932.
25. Humphreys, G. W., Lloyd-Jones, T. J. and Fias, W. 1995. Semantic interference effects on naming using a post-cue procedure: Tapping the links between semantics and phonology with pictures and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21: 961 - 980.
26. Hutson, J., Damian, M. F., & Spalek, K. 2013. Distractor frequency effects in picture-word interference tasks with vocal and manual responses. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 615 - 632.
27. Janssen, N., Schirm, W., Mahon, B. Z. and 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.
28. Jolicoeur, P., Glucks, M. A. and Kosslyn, S. M. 1984. Pictures and names: Making the connection. Cognitive Psychology, 16: 243 - 275.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. La Heij, W. 1988. Components of Stroop-like interference in picture naming. Memory and Cognition, 16: 400 - 410.
32. La Heij, W., Heikoop, K. W., Akerboom, S. and Bloem, I. 2003. Picture naming in picture context: Semantic interference or semantic facilitation?. Psychological Science, 45: 49 - 62.
33. 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.
34. Lupker, S. J. 1979. The semantic nature of response competition in the Picture-Word Interference Task. Memory and Cognition, 7: 485 - 495.
35. 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.
36. Mädebach, A., Oppermann, F., Hantsch, A., Curda, C. and Jescheniak, J. D. 2011. Is there semantic interference in delayed naming?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37: 522 - 538.
37. Mahon, B. Z. and Caramazza, A. 2009. Why does lexical selection have to be so hard? Comment on Abdel Rahman and Melinger's swinging lexical network proposal. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24: 735 - 748.
38. Mahon, B. Z., Costa, A., Peterson, R., Vargas, K. A. and 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.
39. Miozzo, M. and Caramazza, A. 2003. When more is less: A counterintuitive effect of distractor frequency in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132: 228 - 252.
40. Murphy, G. L. and Wisniewski, E. J. 1989. Categorizing objects in isolation and in scenes: What a superordinate is good for. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, Cognition, 15: 572 - 586.
41. Piai, V., Roelofs, A. and Schriefers, H. 2011. Semantic interference in immediate and delayed naming and reading: Attention and task decisions. Journal of Memory and Language, 64: 404 - 423.
42. Rapp, B. and Goldrick, M. 2000. Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production. Psychological Review, 107: 460 - 499.
43. Roelofs, A. 1992. A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42: 107 - 142.
44. Roelofs, A. 1993. Testing a non-decompositional theory of lemma retrieval in speaking: Retrieval of verbs. Cognition, 47: 59 - 87.
45. Roelofs, A. 2001. Set size and repetition matter: Comment on Caramazza and Costa (2000). Cognition, 80: 283 - 290.
46. Roelofs, A. 2003. Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: Modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. Psychological Review, 110: 88 - 125.
47. Roelofs, A. 2008. Tracing attention and the activation flow in spoken word planning using eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34: 353 - 368.
48. Roelofs, A., Piai, V. and Schriefers, H. 2011. Selective attention and distractor frequency in naming performance: Comment on Dhooge and Hartsuiker (2010). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37: 1032 - 1038.
49. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M. and Boyes-Braem, P. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8: 382 - 439.
50. Rosinski, R. 1977. Picture-word interference is semantically based. Child Development, 46: 247 - 253.
51. Schiller, N. O. and Caramazza, A. 2003. Grammatical feature selection in noun phrase production: Evidence from German and Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 48: 169 - 194.
52. Schriefers, H. 1993. Syntactic processes in the production of noun phrases. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19: 841 - 850.
53. 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.
54. Simon, J. R. and 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.
55. Starreveld, P. A. and 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.
56. 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, and Cognition, 22: 896 - 918.
57. Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Lewis, W. and Garrett, M. F. 2004. Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48: 422 - 488.
58. Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P. and Siri, S. 2005. Semantic similarity and grammatical class in naming actions. Cognition, 94: B91 - B100.
59. Vitkovitch, M. and Tyrrell, L. 1999. The effects of distractor words on naming pictures at the subordinate level. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 52 (A): 905 - 926.
60. Wardlow Lane, L., Groisman, M. and Ferreira, V. S. 2006. Don't talk about pink elephants! Speakers' control over leaking private information during language production. Psychological Science, 17: 273 - 277.
61. Wegner, D. M. 2009. How to think, say, or do precisely the worst thing for any occasion. Science, 325: 48 - 50.