Memory & Cognition

, Volume 42, Issue 6, pp 843–853 | Cite as

Facilitation and interference in the color-naming task



Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the phonological activation of the name of pictures when participants had to name the color in which these pictures were depicted. In Experiment 1, participants named the color of pictures whose names and color names shared the phonological beginning (phonologically related condition), the color of pictures whose names and color names did not share phonology (phonologically unrelated condition), and the color of abstract forms (neutral condition). A facilitatory effect was obtained, so participants were faster in the related condition than in the unrelated condition. However, naming latencies were similar in the neutral condition and the unrelated condition. In Experiment 2, the unrelated condition was replaced by a phonologically incongruent condition in which the name of the picture was phonologically unrelated to its color name but related to the name of other response color names. The results showed again a facilitatory effect when the related condition was compared with the incongruent condition. Importantly, an interference effect was also observed, so naming latencies were longer in the incongruent condition than in the neutral condition. These results are discussed in terms of language production models.


Speech production Color-naming task Phonological facilitation Color–object interference 


  1. 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 and Language, 48, 468–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bloem, I., van den Boogaard, 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 and Language, 51, 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonin, P., Roux, S., Barry, C., & Canell, L. (2012). Evidence for a limited–cascading account of written word naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1741–1758.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for the models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1283–1296.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cuetos, F., González-Nosti, M., Barbón, A., & Brysbaert, M. (2011). Spanish word frequency based on film subtitles. Psicológica, 32, 133–143.Google Scholar
  7. Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading–activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dumay, N., & Damian, M. F. (2011). A word–order constraint in single–word production? Failure to replicate Janssen, Alario, and Caramazza (2008). Psychological Science, 22, 559–561.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glaser, W. R., & Glaser, M. O. (1989). Context effects in Stroop–like word and picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 13–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Harley, T. A. (1993). Phonological activation of semantic competitors during lexical access in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Janssen, N., Alario, F. X., & Carmazza, A. (2008). A word–order constraint on phonological activation. Psychological Science, 19, 216–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jescheniak, J. D., Oppermann, F., Hantsch, A., Wagner, V., Mädebach, A., & Schriefers, H. (2009). Do perceived context pictures automatically activate their phonological code? Experimental Psychology, 56, 56–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klein, G. (1964). Semantic power measured through the interference of words with color–naming. American Journal of Psychology, 77, 576–588.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuipers, J. R., & La Heij, W. (2009). The limitations of cascading in the speech production system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 120–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. La Heij, W., & Boelens, H. (2011). Color–object interference: Further tests of an executive control account. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 156–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. La Heij, W., Boelens, H., & Kuipers, J. R. (2010). Object interference in children’s colour and position naming: Lexical interference or task–set competition? Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 568–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Models of word production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 223–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacLeod, C. M. (2005). The Stroop task in cognitive research. In A. Wenzel & D. Rubin (Eds.), Cognitive methods and their application to clinical research (pp. 17–40). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mädebach, A., Jescheniak, J. D., Oppermann, F., & Schriefers, H. (2011). Ease of processing constrains the activation flow in the conceptual–lexical system during speech planning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 649–660.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Meyer, A. S. (1996). Lexical access in phrase and sentence production: Results from picture–word interference experiments. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 477–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meyer, A. S., & Damian, M. (2007). Activation of distractor names in the picture–picture interference paradigm. Memory and Cognition, 35, 494–503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morsella, E., & Miozzo, M. (2002). Evidence for a cascade model of lexical access in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 555–563.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Navarrete, E., & Costa, A. (2005). Phonological activation of ignored pictures: Further evidence for a cascade model of lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Navarrete, E., & Costa, A. (2009). The distractor picture paradox in speech production: Evidence from the word translation task. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38, 527–547.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oppermann, F., Jescheniak, J. D., Schriefers, H., & Görges, F. (2010). Semantic relatedness among objects promotes the activation of multiple phonological codes during object naming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 356–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pérez, M. A., & Navalón, C. (2003). Normas españolas de 290 nuevos dibujos: Acuerdo en la denominación, concordancia de la imagen, familiaridad, complejidad visual y variabilidad de la imagen [Spanish norms of 290 new pictures: Naming agreement, picture agreement, familiarity, visual complexity and picture variability]. Psicológica, 24, 215–241.Google Scholar
  30. Prevor, M. B., & Diamond, A. (2005). Color–object interference in young children: A Stroop effect in children 3½_6½ years old. Cognitive Development, 20, 256–278.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Proctor, R. W. (1978). Sources of color–word interference in the Stroop color–naming task. Perception & Psychophysics, 23, 413–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rapp, B., & Goldrick, M. (2000). Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production. Psychological Review, 107, 460–499.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Regan, J. (1978). Involuntary automatic processing in color–naming tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 24, 130–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sanfeliu, M. C., & Fernández, A. (1996). A set of 254 Snodgrass–Vanderwart pictures standardized for Spanish: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 537–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schneider, W. (1995). Micro experimental laboratory. Pittsburg, PA: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
  36. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E–Prime user’s guide (Version 1.1). Pittsburg, PA: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
  37. 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 and Memory, 6, 174–215.Google Scholar
  38. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Psicología Experimental, Facultad de PsicologíaUniversidad de GranadaGranadaSpain
  2. 2.University of MurciaMurciaSpain

Personalised recommendations