Advertisement

The impact of image characteristics on written naming in adults

  • Patrick Bonin
  • Alain Méot
  • Betty Laroche
  • Aurélia Bugaiska
  • Cyril Perret
Article

Abstract

The present study was aimed at investigating whether and how image characteristics influence written naming performance in adults. In three different sessions, participants had to quickly write down the names of pictured objects on a graphic tablet. Across sessions, the picture format was different, but the to-be-named objects were the same: There were black-and-white pictures (Snodgrass & Vanderwart’s [SV] 1980 drawings), grayscale and colored pictures of the SV drawings as provided by Rossion and Pourtois (2004). Linear-mixed models (LMM) were used to analyze written latencies. The main findings were the following: (1) Colorized pictures yielded shorter written naming latencies than line drawings with the grayscale pictures being situated between the two; (2) Both within- and between-picture format LMM revealed reliable effects of name agreement, objective word frequency, frequency trajectory (the effect was marginal in the grayscale condition), and imageability on written latencies. The influence of image agreement was, however, less stable (reliable only in the colorized condition in the within-picture format LMM analysis; significant with both line drawings and their colorized version only in the between-picture format LMM analysis); (3) None of the interactions with picture format reached significance except the interaction of Image agreement with Picture format. In line with Bonin, Roux, Barry, & Canell (2012b), the findings support a limited-cascading account of written word production.

Keywords

Image characteristics Written naming Determinants of picture naming 

References

  1. Alario, F.-X., & Ferrand, L. (1999). A set of 400 pictures standardized for French: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, and age of acquisition. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 31, 531–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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, 140–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakhtiar, M., Nilipour, R., & Weekes, B. S. (2013). Predictors of timed picture naming in Persian. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 834–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. I., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., et al. (2007). The English Lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonin, P., Barry, C., Méot, A., & Chalard, M. (2004). The influence of age of acquisition in word reading and other tasks: A never ending story? Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 456–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonin, P., Chalard, M., Méot, A., & Fayol, M. (2002). The determinants of spoken and written picture naming latencies. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 89–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonin, P., & Fayol, M. (2000). Writing words from pictures: What representations are activated and when? Memory & Cognition, 28, 677–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonin, P., Méot, A., Lagarrigue, A., & Roux, S. (2015). Written object naming, spelling to dictation, and immediate copying: Different tasks, different pathways? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1268–1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonin, P., Peereman, R., Malardier, N., Méot, A., & Chalard, M. (2003). A new set of 299 pictures for psycholinguistic studies: French norms for name agreement, image agreement, conceptual familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, age of acquisition, and naming latencies. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 35, 158–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonin, P., Roux, S., & Barry, C. (2012a). Translating nonverbal pictures into verbal word names: Understanding lexical access and retrieval. In V. Berninger (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (Chapter 13, pp. 315–332). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bonin, P., Roux, S., Barry, C., & Canell, L. (2012b). Evidence for a limited-cascading account of written word naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1741–1758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bormann, T. (2011). The role of lexical-semantic neighborhood in object naming: Implications for models of lexical access. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 127. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bramão, I., Faísca, L., Petersson, K. M., & Reis, A. (2010). The influence of surface color information and color knowledge information in object recognition. The American Journal of Psychology, 123, 459–468.Google Scholar
  14. Brodeur, M. B., Dionne-Dostie, E., Montreuil, T., & Lepage, M. (2010). The bank of standardized stimuli (BOSS), a new set of 480 normative photos of objects to be used as visual stimuli in cognitive research. PLoS ONE, 5, e10773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brodeur, M. B., Guérard, K., & Bouras, M. (2014). Bank of standardized stimuli (BOSS) phase II: 930 new normative photos. PLoS ONE, 9, e106953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brodeur, M., Kehayia, E., Dion-Lessard, G., Chauret, M., Montreuil, T., Dionne-Dostie, E., et al. (2012). The bank of standardized stimuli (BOSS): Comparison between French and English norms. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 961–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brodie, E. E., Wallace, A. M., & Sharrat, B. (1991). Effect of surface characteristics and style of production on naming and verification of pictorial stimuli. The American Journal of Psychology, 104, 517–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferrand, L., New, B., Brysbaert, M., Keuleers, E., Bonin, P., Méot, A., et al. (2010). The French lexicon project: Lexical decision data for 38, 840 French words and 38, 840 pseudowords. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 488–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, K. (1998). Constraint, word frequency, and the relationship between lexical processing levels in spoken word production. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 313–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heuer, S. (2016). The influence of image characteristics on image recognition: A comparison of photographs and line drawings. Aphasiology, 30, 943–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Humphreys, G. W., Riddoch, M. J., & Quinlan, P. T. (1988). Cascade processes in picture identification. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5, 67–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lété, B., Sprenger-Charolles, L., & Colé, P. (2004). MANULEX: A grade-level lexical database from French elementary-school readers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36, 156–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. Moreno-Martínez, F. J., & Montoro, P. R. (2012). An ecological alternative to Snodgrass & Vanderwart: 360 high quality colour images with norms for seven psycholinguistic variables. PLoS ONE, 7, e37527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. New, B., Pallier, C., Brysbaert, M., & Ferrand, L. (2004). Lexique 2: A new French lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36, 516–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. O’Sullivan, M., Lepage, M., Bouras, M., Montreuil, T., & Brodeur, M. B. (2012). North-American norms for name disagreement: Pictorial stimuli naming discrepancies. PLoS ONE, 7, e47802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peereman, R., Lété, B., & Sprenger-Charolles, L. (2007). Manulex-infra: Distributional characteristics of grapheme–phoneme mappings, infra-lexical and lexical units in child-directed written material. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 593–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Perret, C., & Laganaro, M. (2012). Comparison of electrophysiological correlates of writing and speaking: A topographic ERP analysis. Brain Topography, 25, 64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pexman, P. M., Hargreaves, I. A., Siakaluk, P. D., Bodner, G. E., & Pope, J. (2008). There are many ways to be rich: Effects of three measures of semantic richness on visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rabovsky, M., Schad, D. J., & Abdel Rahman, R. (2016). Language production is facilitated by semantic richness but inhibited by semantic density: Evidence from picture naming. Cognition, 146, 240–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rossion, B., & Pourtois, G. (2004). Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart’s object pictorial set: The role of surface detail in basic-level object recognition. Perception, 33, 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Salmon, J. P., Matheson, H. E., & McMullen, P. A. (2014). Photographs of manipulable objects are named more quickly than the same objects depicted as line-drawings: Evidence that photographs engage embodiment more than line-drawings. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1187. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01187.Google Scholar
  34. Salmon, J. P., McMullen, P. A., & Filliter, J. H. (2010). Norms for two types of manipulability (graspability and functional usage), familiarity, and age of acquisition for 320 photographs of objects. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 82–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shao, Z., & Stiegert, J. (2016). Predictors of photo naming: Dutch norms for 327 photos. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 577–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for names agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174–215.Google Scholar
  37. Snodgrass, J. G., & Yuditsky, T. (1996). Naming times for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 28, 516–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Szekely, A., & Bates, E. (2000). Objective visual complexity as a variable in studies of picture naming. Center for Research in Language Newsletter, 12, 1–33.Google Scholar
  39. Therriault, D. J., Yaxley, R. H., & Zwaan, R. A. (2009). The role of color diagnosticity in object recognition and representation. Cognitive Processes, 10, 335–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tsaparina, D., Bonin, P., & Méot, A. (2011). Russian norms for name agreement, image agreement for the colorized version of the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures and age of acquisition, conceptual familiarity, and imageability scores for the modal object names. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 1085–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weekes, B., Shu, H., Hao, M., & Hai, L. N. (2007). Predictors of timed picture naming in Chinese. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 335–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yap, M. J., & Pexman, P. M. (2016). Semantic richness effects in syntactic classification: The role of feedback. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LEAD-CNRS UMR 5022, Pôle AAFEUniversité de Bourgogne Franche-ComtéDijon CedexFrance
  2. 2.Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, LAPSCOClermont-FerrandFrance
  3. 3.CeRCA-CNRS UMR 7295Université de PoitiersPoitiersFrance

Personalised recommendations