Abstract
In a previous article, (Riès, Legou, Burle, Alario, & Malfait, 2012), we reported that articulatory processes contribute to the well-established finding that response latencies are longer for picture naming than for word reading. We based this conclusion on the observation that picture naming, as compared with word reading, lengthened not only the interval between stimulus onset and the initiation of lip muscle activation (premotor time), but also the interval between lip muscle activation and vocal response onset (motor time). However, on the basis of our subsequent work in this area, we believe that our original definition of premotor time (and, consequently, of motor time) was suboptimal. On a sizable number of trials, this led to the detection of lip muscle activation (as inferred from surface EMG) that was apparently unrelated to the articulation of the vocal response. Therefore, we believe it is preferable to operationalize premotor time as the interval between stimulus onset and the muscle activation that occurred closest in time to vocal response onset. After reestimating premotor times according to this new definition, we no longer found an effect of our task contrast on the motor time interval. The present article explains the caveats regarding our previous analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alario, F. X., Ferrand, L., Laganaro, M., New, B., Frauenfelder, U. H., & Segui, J. (2004). Predictors of picture naming speed. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(1), 140–155.
Botwinick, J., & Thompson, L. W. (1966). Premotor and motor components of reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(1), 9–15.
Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. (1992). Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica, 49(3–4), 155–180.
Ferrand, L. (1999). Why naming takes longer than reading? The special case of Arabic numbers. Acta Psychologica, 100(3), 253–266.
Gracco, V. L. (1988). Timing factors in the coordination of speech movements. The Journal of Neuroscience, 8(12), 4628–4639.
Meister, I. G., Wilson, S. M., Deblieck, C., Wu, A. D., & Iacoboni, M. (2007). The essential role of premotor cortex in speech perception. Current Biology, 17(19), 1692–1696.
Possamaī, C. A., Burle, B., Osman, A., & Hasbroucq, T. (2002). Partial advance information, number of alternatives, and motor processes: An electromyographic study. Acta Psychologica, 111(1), 125–139.
Ratcliff, R. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 446–461.
Riès, S., Legou, T., Burle, B., Alario, F. X., & Malfait, N. (2012). Why does picture naming take longer than word reading? The contribution of articulatory processes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 955–961.
Vincent, S. B. (1912). The functions of the viborissae in the behavior of the white rat. Behavioral Monographs, 1(5).
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge financial support from the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007-2013 Grant agreements 263575 and 241077) and a postdoctoral grant of the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number F32DC013245 to S.K.R. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. We thank Lotje van der Linden for critical insight on the reanalysis of this data set.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Riès, S., Legou, T., Burle, B. et al. Corrigendum to “Why does picture naming take longer than word naming? The contribution of articulatory processes”. Psychon Bull Rev 22, 309–311 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0668-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0668-4