Abstract
In four experiments, participants named target pictures that were accompanied by distractor pictures with phonologically related or unrelated names. Across experiments, the type of phonological relationship between the targets and the related distractors was varied: They were homophones (e.g.,bat [animal/baseball]), or they shared word-initial segments (e.g.,dog-doll) or word-final segments (e.g.,ball-wall). The participants either named the objects after an extensive familiarization and practice phase or without any familiarization or practice. In all of the experiments, the mean target-naming latency was shorter in the related than in the unrelated condition, demonstrating that the phonological form of the name of the distractor picture became activated. These results are best explained within a cascaded model of lexical access—that is, under the assumption that the recognition of an object leads to the activation of its name.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Belke, A. S., Meyer, A. S., &Damian, M. (2005). Refractoriness in the semantic system.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,58, 667–692.
Bloem, I., &La Heij, W. (2003). Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in word translation: Implications for models of lexical access in language production.Journal of Memory & Language,48, 468–488.
Bloem, I., van den Boogard, S., &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 & Language,51, 307–323.
Brown, R., &McNeill, D. (1966). The “tip-of-the-tongue” phenomenon.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,5, 325–337.
Butterworth, B. (1989). Lexical access in speech production. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.),Lexical representations and process (pp. 108–135). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177–208.
Caramazza, A., Bi, Y. C., Costa, A., &Miozzo, M. (2004). What determines the speed of lexical access: Homophone or specific-word frequency? A reply to Jescheniak et al. (2003).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,30, 278–282.
Caramazza, A., Costa, A., Miozzo, M., &Bi, Y. (2001). The specificword frequency effect: Implications for the representation of homophones in speech production.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 1430–1450.
Cholin, J., Schiller, N. O., &Levelt, W. J. M. (2004). The preparation of syllables in speech production.Journal of Memory & Language,50, 47–61.
Collins, A. F., &Ellis, A. W. (1992). Phonological priming of lexical retrieval in speech production.British Journal of Psychology,83, 375–388.
Costa, A., Caramazza, A., &Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for models of lexical access.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 1283–1296.
Costa, A., Santesteban, M., &Caño, A. (2005). On the facilitatory effects of cognate words in bilingual speech production.Brain & Language,94, 94–103.
Damian, M. F., &Bowers, J. S. (2003). Locus of semantic interference in picture-word interference tasks.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 111–117.
Damian, M. F., &Martin, R. C. (1999). Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 345–361.
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production.Psychological Review,93, 283–321.
Dell, G. S., Burger, L. K., &Svec, W. R. (1997). Language production and serial order: A functional analysis and a model.Psychological Review,104, 123–147.
Dell, G. S., &Reich, P. A. (1981). Stages in sentence production: An analysis of speech error data.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,20, 611–629.
Ferreira, V. S., &Griffin, Z. M. (2003). Phonological influences on lexical (mis)selection.Psychological Science,14, 86–90.
Fodor, J. A. (1983).The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Garrett, M. F. (1980). Levels of processing in sentence production. In B. Butterworth (Ed.),Language production (pp. 177–230). New York: Academic Press.
Germeys, F., de Graef, P., &Verfaillie, K. (2002). Transsaccadic perception of saccade target and flanker objects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 868–883.
Henderson, J. M., &Hollingworth, A. (2003). Eye movements and visual memory: Detecting changes to saccade targets in scenes.Perception & Psychophysics,65, 58–71.
Henderson, J. M., &Siefert, A. B. C. (1999). The influence of enantiomorphic transformation on transsaccadic object integration.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 243–255.
Humphreys, G. W., &Forde, E. M. E. (2001). Hierarchies, similarity, and interactivity in object recognition: “Category-specific” neuropsychological deficits.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,24, 453–509.
Humphreys, G. W., Riddoch, M. J., &Quinlan, P. T. (1988). Cascade processes in picture identification.Cognitive Neuropsychology,5, 67–103.
Jescheniak, J. D., Hahne, A., &Schriefers, H. (2003). Information flow in the mental lexicon during speech planning: Evidence from event-related brain potentials.Cognitive Brain Research,15, 261–276.
Jescheniak, J. D., &Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 824–843.
Jescheniak, J. D., Meyer, A. S., &Levelt, W. J. M. (2003). Specificword frequency is not all that counts in speech production: Comments on Caramazza, Costa et al. and new experimental data.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,29, 432–438.
Jescheniak, J. D., &Schriefers, H. (1998). Discrete serial versus cascaded processing in lexical access in speech production: Further evidence from the coactivation of near-synonyms.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 1256–1273.
Kroll, J. F., &Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations.Journal of Memory & Language,13, 149–174.
La Heij, W., Hooglander, A., Kerling, R., &van der Velden, E. (1996). Nonverbal context effects in forward and backward word translation: Evidence for conceptual mediation.Journal of Memory & Language,35, 648–665.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989).Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Models of word production.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,3, 223–232.
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., &Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,22, 1–38.
Levelt, W. J. M., Schriefers, H., Vorberg, D., Meyer, A. S., Pechmann, T., &Havinga, J. (1991). The time course of lexical access in speech production: A study of picture naming.Psychological Review,98, 122–142.
MacKay, D. G. (1987).The organization of perception and action: A theory for language and other cognitive skills. New York: Springer.
Meyer, A. S. (1990). The time course of phonological encoding in language production: The encoding of successive syllables.Journal of Memory & Language,29, 524–545.
Meyer, A. S. (1991). The time course of phonological encoding in language production: Phonological encoding inside a syllable.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 69–89.
Meyer, A. S., & Belke, E. (in press). Word form retrieval in language Activation of Distractor Names 503 production. In G. Gaskell (Ed.),Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meyer, A. S., &Schriefers, H. (1991). Phonological facilitation in picture-word interference experiments: Effects of stimulus onset asynchrony and types of interfering stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 1146–1160.
Miozzo, M., Jacobs, M. L., &Singer, N. J. W. (2004). The representation of homophones: Evidence from anomia.Cognitive Neuropsychology,21, 840–866.
Morgan, J. L., &Meyer, A. S. (2005). Processing of extrafoveal objects during multiple object naming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory, & Cognition,31, 428–442.
Morsella, E., &Miozzo, M. (2002). Evidence for a cascade model of lexical access in speech production.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,28, 555–563.
Navarrete, E., &Costa, A. (2005). Phonological activation of ignored pictures: Further evidence for a cascade model of lexical access.Journal of Memory & Language,53, 359–377.
Peterson, R. R., &Savoy, P. (1998). Lexical selection and phonological encoding during language production: Evidence for cascaded processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 539–557.
Rapp, B., &Goldrick, M. (2000). Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production.Psychological Review,107, 460–499.
Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers.Psychological Bulletin,114, 510–532.
Rensink, R. A. (2000). Seeing, sensing, and scrutinizing.Vision Research,40, 1469–1487.
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.
Roelofs, A. (2002). Spoken language planning and the initiation of articulation.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,55A, 465–483.
Roelofs, A. (2004). Seriality of phonological encoding in naming objects and reading their names.Memory & Cognition,32, 212–222.
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 & Language,29, 86–102.
Sevald, C. A., &Dell, G. S. (1994). The sequential cuing effect in speech production.Cognition,53, 91–127.
Snodgrass, J. G., &Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,6, 174–215.
Stemberger, J. P. (1985). An interactive activation model of language production. In A. W. Ellis (Ed.),Progress in the psychology of language (Vol. 1, pp. 143–186). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Van Selst, M., &Jolicoeur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47A, 631–650.
Vigliocco, G., Antonini, T., &Garrett, M. F. (1997). Grammatical gender is on the tip of Italian tongues.Psychological Science,8, 314–317.
Wilshire, C. E., &Saffran, E. M. (2005). Contrasting effects of phonological priming in aphasic word production.Cognition,95, 31–71.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by Nuffield Foundation Social Sciences Small Grant SGS/00912/G to A.S.M. and M.F.D.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Meyer, A.S., Damian, M.F. Activation of distractor names in the picture-picture interference paradigm. Memory & Cognition 35, 494–503 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193289
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193289