Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What can we learn about visual attention to multiple words from the word–word interference task?

  • Published:
Memory & Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this work, we develop an empirically driven model of visual attention to multiple words using the word–word interference (WWI) task. In this task, two words are simultaneously presented visually: a to-be-ignored distractor word at fixation, and a to-be-read-aloud target word above or below the distractor word. Experiment 1 showed that low-frequency distractor words interfere more than high-frequency distractor words. Experiment 2 showed that distractor frequency (high vs. low) and target frequency (high vs. low) exert additive effects. Experiment 3 showed that the effect of the case status of the target (same vs. AlTeRnAtEd) interacts with the type of distractor (word vs. string of # marks). Experiment 4 showed that targets are responded to faster in the presence of semantically related distractors than in presence of unrelated distractors. Our model of visual attention to multiple words borrows two principles governing processing dynamics from the dual-route cascaded model of reading: cascaded interactive activation and lateral inhibition. At the core of the model are three mechanisms aimed at dealing with the distinctive feature of the WWI task, which is that two words are presented simultaneously. These mechanisms are identification, tokenization, and deactivation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allport, D. A. (1977). On knowing the meaning of words we are unable to report: The effects of visual masking. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 505–533). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayora, P., Peressotti, F., Alario, F.-X., Mulatti, C., Pluchino, P., Job, R., & Dell’Acqua, R. (2011). What phonological facilitation tells about semantic interference: A dual-task study. Frontiers in Language Sciences, 2(57), 1–10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00057

    Google Scholar 

  • Besner, D., & McCann, R. S. (1987). Word frequency and pattern distortion in visual word identification and production: An examination of four classes of models. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII (pp. 201–219). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, H., & Wyble, B. (2007). The simultaneous type, serial token model of temporal attention and working memory. Psychological Review, 114, 38–70. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chun, M. M. (1997). Types and tokens in visual processing: A double dissociation between the attentional blink and repetition blindness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 738–755. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.23.3.738

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, W. R., & Glaser, M. O. (1989). Context effects in Stroop-like word and picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 13–42. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.118.1.13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayworth, K.J. (2009). Explicit encoding of spatial relations in the human visual system: Evidence from functional neuroimaging (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3389612)

  • Hayworth, K.J., Lescroart, M. D., & Biederman, I. (2011). Neural encoding of relative position. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1032–1050.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175–219. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(92)90007-O

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kanwisher, N. G. (1987). Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation. Cognition, 27, 117–143. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(87)90016-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kanwisher, N. G. (1991). Repetition blindness and illusory conjunctions: Errors in binding visual types with visual tokens. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 404–421. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.17.2.404

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • La Heij, W. (1988). Components of Stroop-like interference in picture naming. Memory & Cognition, 16, 400–410. doi:10.3758/BF03214220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Heij, W., Happel, B., & Mulder, M. (1990). Components of Stroop-like interference in word reading. Acta Psychologica, 73, 115–129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Laudanna, A., Thornton, A. M., Brown, G., Burani, C., & Marconi, L. (1995). In S. Bolasco, L. Lebart, & A. Salem (Eds.), III Giornate internazionali di Analisi Statistica dei Dati Testuali (Vol. I, pp. 103–109). Rome. Italy: Cisu.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, disc. 38–75.

  • Mayall, K., Humphreys, G. W., & Olson, A. (1997). Disruption to word or letter processing? The origins of case-mixing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1275–1286. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.23.5.1275

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCauley, C., Parmelee, C. M., Sperber, R. D., & Carr, T. H. (1980). Early extraction of meaning from pictures and its relation to conscious identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 265–276. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.6.2.265

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, J. L. (1986). The programmable blackboard model of reading. In J. L. McClelland & D. E. Rumelhart (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 122–169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–86. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(86)90015-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (2003). When more is less: A counterintuitive effect of distractor frequency in the picture–word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 228–252. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.132.2.228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S., Taylor, T. J., & Murphy, K. (2001). Naming the color of a word: Is it responses or task sets that compete? Memory & Cognition, 29, 137–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review, 76, 165–178. doi:10.1037/h0027366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulatti, C., Lotto, L., Peressotti, F., & Job, R. (2010). Speed of processing explains the picture—Word asymmetry in conditional naming. Psychological Research, 74, 71–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mulatti, C., Peressotti, F., Job, R., Saunders, S., & Coltheart, M. (2012). Reading aloud: The cumulative lexical interference effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 662–667. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0269-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, O. (1986). Facilitative and inhibitory effects of “semantic relatedness” (Report No. 111/1986). , Bielefeld, Germany: University of Bielefeld, “Perception and Action” Research Group.

  • Perea, M., & Rosa, E. (2000). The effects of orthographic neighborhood in reading and laboratory word identification tasks: A review. Psicológica, 21, 327–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roelofs, A. (2003). Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: Modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. Psychological Review, 110, 88–125. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roelofs, A. (2004). Seriality of phonological encoding in naming objects and reading their names. Memory & Cognition, 32, 212–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J. R., Cheesman, J., & Besner, D. (2013). You can’t Stroop a lexical decision: Is semantic processing fundamentally facilitative? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 130–139.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Treccani, B., Cubelli, R., Sellaro, R., Umiltà, C., & Della Sala, S. (2012). Dissociation between awareness and spatial coding: Evidence from unilateral neglect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 854–867.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Selst, M., & Jolicœur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 631–650. doi:10.1080/14640749408401131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, C., & Morton, J. (1982). The effects of priming on picture recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 117–129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Università degli Studi di Padova, Padua, Italy

    Claudio Mulatti & Lisa Ceccherini

  2. Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Lisa Ceccherini & Max Coltheart

Authors
  1. Claudio Mulatti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa Ceccherini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Max Coltheart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudio Mulatti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mulatti, C., Ceccherini, L. & Coltheart, M. What can we learn about visual attention to multiple words from the word–word interference task?. Mem Cogn 43, 121–132 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0450-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0450-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation