Locus of semantic interference in picture naming: Evidence from dual-task performance

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 147-165

  Piai, Vitória ^a,b   Roelofs, Ardi ^a   Schriefers, Herbert ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^b International Max Planck Research School for Language Sciences   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Dual task performance; Picture word interference; Response selection bottleneck; Semantic interference; Stroop

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; MALE; NOMENCLATURE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; ATTENTION; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; MALE; NAMES; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84890925417     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0033745     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Abdel Rahman, R., & Melinger, A. (2009). Semantic context effects in language production: A swinging lexical network proposal and a review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 713-734. doi:10.1080/ 01690960802597250
2. Ayora, P., Peressotti, F., Alario, F.-X., Mulatti, C., Pluchino, P., Job, R., & Dell'Acqua, R. (2011). What phonological facilitation tells about semantic interference: A dual-task study. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 57. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00057
3. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
4. Booij, G. E. (1995). The phonology of Dutch. Oxford, England: Clarendon.
5. Borgwaldt, S., Bolger, P., & Jakab, E. (2010). Shallow versus deep footprints in pseudo-word grapheme-to-phoneme conversion: Dutch and English. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 22, 425-443. doi:10.1017/ S1470542710000139
6. Bosman, A. M. T., De Graaff, S., & Gijsel, M. A. R. (2006). Double Dutch: The Dutch spelling system and learning to spell in Dutch. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 135-150). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Cumming, G. (2008). Replication and p intervals: p values predict the future only vaguely, but confidence intervals do much better. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 286-300. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924 .2008.00079.x
8. Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.
9. Cumming, G., & Maillardet, R. (2006). Confidence intervals and replication: Where will the next mean fall. Psychological Methods, 11, 217- 227. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.11.3.217
10. Damian, M. F., & Martin, R. C. (1999). Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 345-361. doi:10.1037/0278-7393 .25.2.345
11. Dell'Acqua, R., Job, R., Peressotti, F., & Pascali, A. (2007). The picture- word interference effect is not a Stroop effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 717-722. doi:10.3758/BF03196827
12. Fagot, C., & Pashler, H. (1992). Making two responses to a single object: Implications for the central attentional bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1058- 1079. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.18.4.1058
13. Ferreira, V., & Pashler, H. (2002). Central bottleneck influences on the processing stages of word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 1187-1199. doi:10.1037/ 0278-7393.28.6.1187
14. Fisher, R. A. (1966). The design of experiments (8th ed.). Edinburgh, Scotland: Oliver & Boyd.
15. Glaser, W. R. (1992). Picture naming. Cognition, 42, 61-105. doi:10.1016/ 0010-0277(92)90040-O
16. Glaser, W. R., & Düngelhoff, F. J. (1984). The time course of picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 640-654. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.10.5.640
17. Hübner, R., & Lehle, C. (2007). Strategies of flanker coprocessing in single and dual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 103-123. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.1.103
18. Israel, M., & Cohen, A. (2011). Involuntary strategy-dependent dual task performance. Psychological Research, 75, 513-524. doi:10.1007/ s00426-011-0359-y
19. Janssen, N., Schirm, W., Mahon, B. Z., & 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. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.249
20. Karlin, L., & Kestenbaum, R. (1968). Effects of number of alternatives on the psychological refractory period. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 167-178. doi:10.1080/14640746808400145
21. Kerkhoff, J., Wester, J., & Boves, L. (1984). A compiler for implementing the linguistic phase of a text-to-speech conversion system. In H. Benes & W. U. S. van Lesse Kloeke (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands (pp. 111-117). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North-Holland.
22. Kleinman, D. (2013). Resolving semantic interference during word production requires attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/ a0033095
23. Lamers, M. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Rabeling-Keus, I. M. (2010). Selective attention and response set in the Stroop task. Memory & Cognition, 38, 893-904. doi:10.3758/MC.38.7.893
24. Lehle, C., & Hübner, R. (2009). Strategic capacity sharing between two tasks: Evidence from tasks with the same and with different task sets. Psychological Research, 73, 707-726. doi:10.1007/s00426-008-0162-6
25. Leonhard, T., & Ulrich, R. (2011). Determinants of central processing order in psychological refractory period paradigms: Central arrival times, detection times, or preparation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 2012-2043. doi:10.1080/17470218.2011 .573567
26. Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1-38. doi:10.1017/S0140525X99001776
27. Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393-434. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.393
28. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203. doi:10.1037/ 0033-2909.109.2.163
29. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 3-65. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104 .1.3
30. Miller, J. (1991). Reaction time analysis with outlier exclusion: Bias varies with sample size. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 43, 907-912.
31. Miller, J., & Ulrich, R. (2008). Bimanual response grouping in dual-task paradigms. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 999-1019. doi:10.1080/17470210701434540
32. Miller, J., Ulrich, R., & Rolke, B. (2009). On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 273-310. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.08.003
33. Miozzo, M., & 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. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.132.2.228
34. Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 193-251. doi:10.1006/cogp.2001.0767
35. Nunn, A. M. (1998). Dutch orthography: A systematic investigation of the spelling of Dutch words. Den Haag, the Netherlands: Holland Academic Graphics.
36. Pannebakker, M. M., Jolicoeur, P., van Dam, W. O., Ridderinkhof, K. R., & Hommel, B. (2011). Mental rotation impairs attention shifting and short-term memory encoding: Neurophysiological evidence against the response-selection bottleneck model of dual-task performance. Neuropsychologia, 49, 2985-2993. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.06 .021
37. Pashler, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 358-377. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.10.3 .358
38. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-244. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.2 .220
39. Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155-189). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
40. Patel, T. K., Snowling, M. J., & De Jong, P. F. (2004). A cross-linguistic comparison of children learning to read in English and Dutch. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 785-797. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.785
41. Piai, V., & Roelofs, A. (2013). Working memory capacity and dual-task interference in picture naming. Acta Psychologica, 142, 332-342. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.01.006
42. Piai, V., Roelofs, A., & Schriefers, H. (2011). Semantic interference in immediate and delayed naming and reading: Attention and task decisions. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 404-423. doi:10.1016/j .jml.2011.01.004
43. Piai, V., Roelofs, A., & Schriefers, H. (2012). Distractor strength and selective attention in picture naming performance. Memory & Cognition, 40, 614-627. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0171-3
44. Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42, 107-142. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(92)90041-F
45. Roelofs, A. (1997). The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition, 64, 249 -284. doi:10.1016/S0010- 0277(97)00027-9
46. Roelofs, A. (2003). Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: Modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. Psychological Review, 110, 88- 125. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.88
47. Roelofs, A. (2007). Attention and gaze control in picture naming, word reading, and word categorizing. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 232-251. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.10.001
48. Roelofs, A. (2008a). Attention, gaze shifting, and dual-task interference from phonological encoding in spoken word planning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1580- 1598. doi:10.1037/a0012476
49. Roelofs, A. (2008b). Dynamics of the attentional control of word retrieval: Analyses of response time distributions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 303-323. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.137.2.303
50. Roelofs, A., & Piai, V. (2011). Attention demands of spoken word planning: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 307. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011 .00307
51. Ruthruff, E., Allen, P. A., Lien, M.-C., & Grabbe, J. (2008). Visual word recognition without central attention: Evidence for greater automaticity with greater reading ability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 337- 343. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.2.337
52. Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., & Remington, R. W. (2009). How strategic is the central bottleneck: Can it be overcome by trying harder. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1368-1384. doi:10.1037/a0015784
53. Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., Van Selst, M., Whitsell, S., & Remington, R. (2003). Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: Has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 280-289. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.280
54. Ruthruff, E., Pashler, H. E., & Klaassen, A. (2001). Processing bottlenecks in dual-task performance: Structural limitation or strategic postponement. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 73- 80. doi:10.3758/ BF03196141
55. Sanders, A. F. (1964). Selective strategies in the assimilation of successively presented signals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16, 368-372. doi:10.1080/17470216408416395
56. Sanders, A. F. (1998). Elements of human performance: Reaction processes and attention in human skill. London, England: LEA.
57. Schnur, T. T., & Martin, R. (2012). Semantic picture-word interference is a post-perceptual effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 301-308. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0190-x
58. Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. S., & 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. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(90)90011-N
59. Schumacher, E. H., Lauber, E. J., Glass, J. M., Zurbriggen, E. L., Gmeindl, L., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (1999). Concurrent response-selection processes in dual-task performance: Evidence for adaptive executive control of task scheduling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 791-814. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.25 .3.791
60. Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D. E., Lauber, E. J., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12, 101-108. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00318
61. Schvaneveldt, R. (1969). Effects of complexity in simultaneous reaction time tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 289-296. doi: 10.1037/h0027752
62. Schweickert, R. (1980). Critical-path scheduling of mental processes in a dual task. Science, 209, 704-706. doi:10.1126/science.7394529
63. Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143-174. doi:10.1348/000712603321661859
64. Starreveld, P. A., & 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. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.22.4.896
65. Szameitat, A. J., Lepsien, J., von Cramon, D. Y., Sterr, A., & Schubert, T. (2006). Task-order coordination in dual-task performance and the lateral prefrontal cortex: An event-related fMRI study. Psychological Research, 70, 541-552. doi:10.1007/s00426-005-0015-5
66. Szameitat, A. J., Schubert, T., Müller, K., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2002). Localization of executive functions in dual-task performance with fMRI. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 1184 -1199. doi:10.1162/ 089892902760807195
67. Thomson, S., Watter, S., & Finkelshtein, A. (2010). Parallel response selection in dual-task situations via automatic category-to-response translation. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 1791-1802. doi:10.3758/APP.72.7.1791
68. Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 3-18. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.1.3
69. Tukey, J. W. (1969). Analyzing data: Sanctification or detective work. American Psychologist, 24, 83-91. doi:10.1037/h0027108
70. Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (1994). Effects of truncation on reaction time analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 34-80. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.123.1.34
71. Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (2008). Response grouping in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm: Models and contamination effects. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 75-121. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.06 .004
72. van Casteren, M., & Davis, M. H. (2006). Mix, a program for pseudorandomization. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 584-589. doi:10.3758/ BF03193889
73. van Maanen, L., Van Rijn, H., & Taatgen, N. (2012). RACE/A: An architectural account of the interactions between learning, task control, and retrieval dynamics. Cognitive Science, 36, 62-101. doi:10.1111/j .1551-6709.2011.01213.x
74. Van Selst, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (1997). Decision and response in dual-task interference. Cognitive Psychology, 33, 266-307. doi:10.1006/cogp .1997.0662
75. Van Selst, M., Ruthruff, E., & Johnston, J. C. (1999). Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1268- 1283. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.25.5.1268