Abstract
In this study, we investigated picture (Experiments 1 and 2) and word (Experiments 3 and 4) processing using different tasks. In Experiments 1 and 3, easy and difficult conditional naming tasks were compared to a free naming task. In Experiments 2 and 4, easy and difficult conditional naming tasks were compared to easy and difficult manual forced-choice semantic decision tasks. For pictures, we showed that a difficult semantic categorization determined a cost for the conditional naming with respect to the free naming (Experiment 1). Also, we found that the difference in RTs between the easy and difficult conditional naming tasks was much smaller than the difference between the easy and difficult forced-choice semantic decision tasks (Experiment 2). For words, results showed that free reading was faster than easy conditional reading, which in turn was faster than difficult conditional reading (Experiment 3). An analogous pattern of results was obtained when the easy and difficult conditional reading tasks were compared to the easy and difficult forced-choice semantic decision tasks (Experiment 4). Globally, the results showed that whether a cost is observed or not depends upon the relative timing of the classification and name retrieval processes. A theoretical framework has been proposed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Note that in order to explain our data, other functionally equivalent architectures could be developed (e.g., the encyclopedic units could be located at a lower hierarchical level with respect to the super-ordinate category, in such a way that in order to activate the former, the latter has to be activated; see Collins & Loftus, 1975). However, since we had no data on which to base such conjectures, we selected the simplest possible architecture.
References
Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177–208.
Coltheart, M. (1985). Cognitive neuropsychology and the study of reading. In M. I. Posner & O. S. Marin (Eds.), Attention and performance XI (pp. 3–40). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204–256.
Dell’Acqua, R., Lotto, L., & Job, R. (2000). Naming times and standardized norms for the Italian PD/DPSS set of 266 pictures: Direct comparisons with American, English, French, and Spanish published databases. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 32, 588–615.
Humphreys, G. W., & Forde, E. M. E. (2001). Hierarchies, similarity, and interactivity in object recognition: “Category-specific”. Behavioral and Brian Sciences, 24, 453–509.
Humphreys, G. W., Lamote, C., & Lloyd-Jones, T. J. (1995). An interactive activation-competition approach to object processing: Effects of structural similarity, name frequency and task in normality an pathology. Memory, 3, 535–586.
Humphreys, G. W., Price, C. J., & Riddoch, M. J. (1999). From objects to names: A cognitive neuroscience approach. Psychological Research, 62, 118–130.
Job, R., Rumiati, R., & Lotto, L. (1992). The picture superiority effect in categorization: Visual or semantic? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1019–1028.
Job, R., & Tenconi, E. (2002). Naming pictures at no cost: Asymmetries in picture and word conditional naming. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 790–794.
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.
Lloyd-Jones, T. J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1997). Categorizing chairs and naming pears: Category differences in object processing as a function of task and priming. Memory and Cognition, 25, 606–624.
Lotto, L., Dell’Acqua, R., & Job, R. (2001). Le figure PD/DPSS Misure di accordo sul nome, tipicità, familiarità, età di acquisizione e tempi di denominazione per 266 figure. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 28, 231–245.
Lotto, L., Job, R., & Rumiati, R. (1999). Visual effects in picture and word categorization. Memory and Cognition, 127, 674–684.
McCann, R. S., & Besner, D. (1987). Reading pseudohomophones: Implications for models of pronunciation assembly and the locus of word-frequency effects in naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and Performance, 13, 14–24.
McClelland, J. L. (1979). On the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systems of processes in cascade. Psychological Review, 86, 287–330.
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I An account of basic findigs. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407.
Morton, J., & Patterson, K. E. (1980). A new attempt at interpretation, or an attempt at a new interpretation. In M. Coltheart, K. E. Patterson & J. Marshall (Eds.), Deep dyslexia (pp. 91–118). London: Routledge.
Potter, M. C., & Faulconer, B. A. (1975). Time to understand pictures and words. Nature, 253, 437–438.
Rapp, B. C., & Caramazza, A. (1991). Cognitive neuropsychology: From impaired performance to normal cognitive structure. In R. G. Lister & H. J. Weingartner (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive neurosciences (pp. 384–404). New York: Oxford University Press.
Riddoch, M. J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1987). Picture naming. In G. W. Humphreys & M. J. Riddoch (Eds.), Visual object processing: A cognitive neuropsychological approach (pp. 107–143). London: Erlbaum UK.
Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42, 107–142.
Roelofs, A. (1997). The weaver model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition, 64, 249–284.
Smith, M. C., & Magee, L. E. (1980). Tracing the time course of picture—word processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 373–392.
Snodgrass, J. G., & McCullough, B. (1986). The role of visual similarity in picture categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 147–154.
Strain, E. S., Patterson, K., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1995). Semantic effects in single-word naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1140–1154.
Theios, J., & Amrhein, P. C. (1989). Theoretical analysis of the cognitive processing of lexical and pictorial stimuli: Reading, naming, and visual and conceptual comparisons. Psychological Review, 96, 5–24.
Van Selst, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 47A, 631–650.
Viswanathan, M., & Childers, T. L. (2003). An enquiry into the process of categorization of pictures and words. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, 267–287.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by grants from MURST at the Università degli Studi di Padova. We warmly thank Max Coltheart for his helpful comments on a preliminary version of the paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Length of names (in letters, LET; and in syllable SYL), frequency (FRQ), familiarity (FAM), typicality (TYP), age o f acquisition (AoA), and name agreement (NA) for the stimulus material
LET | SYL | FRQ | FAM | TYP | AoA | NA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Italian animals | |||||||
Aquila (Eagle) | 6 | 3 | 2.28 | 4.1 | 6.3 | 4.1 | 71 |
Cervo (Deer) | 5 | 2 | 1.99 | 4.9 | 4.8 | 3.9 | 79 |
Gufo (Owl) | 4 | 2 | 1.90 | 4.1 | 4.2 | 4.1 | 90 |
Maiale (Pig) | 6 | 3 | 2.08 | 5.4 | 4.5 | 2.5 | 98 |
Oca (Goose) | 3 | 2 | 2.65 | 5.0 | 3.4 | 3.1 | 71 |
Pavone (Peacock) | 6 | 3 | 1.34 | 4.1 | 3.6 | 4.5 | 98 |
Pecora (Sheep) | 6 | 3 | 1.89 | 5.3 | 4.5 | 2.8 | 98 |
Picchio (Woodpecker) | 7 | 2 | 0.70 | 4.3 | 5.6 | 4.3 | 86 |
Scoiattolo (Squirrel) | 10 | 4 | 1.04 | 4.5 | 4.1 | 2.9 | 93 |
Topo (Mouse) | 4 | 2 | 2.59 | 5.5 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 98 |
Mean | 5.7 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 4.7 | 4.3 | 3.5 | 88 |
Foreign animals | |||||||
Cammello (Camel) | 8 | 3 | 1.53 | 3.1 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 93 |
Canguro (Kangaroo) | 7 | 3 | 0.95 | 3.7 | 4.9 | 3.9 | 98 |
Elefante (Elephant) | 8 | 4 | 1.85 | 4.2 | 5.5 | 2.7 | 100 |
Giraffa (Giraffe) | 7 | 3 | 1.00 | 4.0 | 4.8 | 2.9 | 98 |
Ippopotamo (Hippopotamus) | 10 | 5 | 0.95 | 2.9 | 3.9 | 4.0 | 83 |
Leone (Lion) | 5 | 3 | 2.61 | 4.3 | 5.9 | 2.4 | 100 |
Pinguino (Penguin) | 8 | 3 | 1.26 | 3.6 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 95 |
Struzzo (Ostrich) | 7 | 2 | 1.28 | 3.3 | 2.9 | 4.9 | 83 |
Tigre (Tiger) | 5 | 2 | 2.17 | 4.1 | 5.7 | 3.0 | 95 |
Zebra (Zebra) | 5 | 2 | 1.20 | 3.8 | 4.8 | 3.6 | 95 |
Mean | 7.0 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 3.7 | 4.5 | 3.4 | 94 |
Objects | |||||||
Bottiglia (Bottle) | 9 | 3 | 2.40 | 6.3 | 5.9 | 1.9 | 98 |
Coltello (Knife) | 8 | 3 | 2.40 | 6.9 | 6.3 | 2.3 | 100 |
Coperchio (Lid) | 9 | 3 | 1.85 | 6.7 | 4.9 | 3.0 | 81 |
Cucchiaio (Spoon) | 9 | 3 | 2.02 | 6.8 | 6.5 | 2.0 | 100 |
Forchetta (Fork) | 9 | 3 | 1.67 | 6.8 | 6.2 | 1.8 | 100 |
Grattugia (Grater) | 9 | 3 | 0.70 | 6.9 | 5.2 | 4.2 | 95 |
Imbuto (Funnel) | 6 | 3 | 1.38 | 6.7 | 4.3 | 3.8 | 100 |
Pentola (Pot) | 7 | 3 | 1.95 | 7.0 | 6.7 | 2.7 | 98 |
Scopa (Broom) | 5 | 2 | 1.40 | 6.9 | 6.0 | 2.7 | 98 |
Teiera (Teapot) | 6 | 3 | 1.32 | 4.7 | 3.7 | 5.1 | 79 |
Antenna (Antenna) | 7 | 3 | 1.93 | 5.4 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 95 |
Bicicletta (Bicycle) | 10 | 4 | 2.45 | 6.9 | 5.3 | 2.3 | 95 |
Divano (Couch) | 6 | 3 | 2.22 | 6.7 | 6.9 | 2.5 | 93 |
Guanto (Glove) | 6 | 2 | 1.76 | 5.3 | 4.3 | 2.9 | 100 |
Ombrello (Umbrella) | 8 | 3 | 1.85 | 6.1 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 98 |
Pigiama (Pyjamas) | 7 | 3 | 1.51 | 6.1 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 98 |
Poltrona (Armchair) | 8 | 3 | 2.58 | 6.3 | 6.2 | 2.7 | 88 |
Sciarpa (Scarf) | 7 | 2 | 1.79 | 6.3 | 5.9 | 2.5 | 100 |
Scrivania (Desk) | 9 | 4 | 2.48 | 6.2 | 5.7 | 3.9 | 83 |
Sveglia (Clock) | 7 | 2 | 1.93 | 6.9 | 6.0 | 3.6 | 90 |
Mean | 7.6 | 2.9 | 1.9 | 6.4 | 5.3 | 3.0 | 94 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mulatti, C., Lotto, L., Peressotti, F. et al. Speed of processing explains the picture–word asymmetry in conditional naming. Psychological Research 74, 71–81 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0182-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0182-2