Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating the mechanisms of written word production: insights from the written blocked cyclic naming paradigm

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In three experiments, we examined whether similar principles apply to written and spoken production. Using a blocked cyclic written picture naming paradigm, we replicated the semantic interference effects previously reported in spoken production (Experiment 1). Using a written spelling-to-dictation blocked cyclic naming task, we also demonstrated that these interference effects disappear when the task does not require semantically-mediated lexical selection (Experiment 2). Results are parallel to those reported for the analogous spoken production task of reading aloud. Similar results were observed in written spelling to dictation regardless of whether stimuli consisted of words with high or low probability phoneme-to-grapheme correspondences (Experiment 3) revealing the important role of non-semantically-mediated spelling routes in written word production. Overall, our results support the view that similar mechanisms underlie written and spoken production. This includes an incremental learning mechanism underlying semantically-mediated lexical selection that produces long-lived interference effects when multiple semantically similar items are repeatedly named.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Some authors have also drawn a parallel to the memory literature concerning retrieval-induced forgetting, whereby participants show reduced recall of previously studied items if they are forced to “actively” retrieve other semantically related items in response to cues between the study and test phases but not if they simply read related words (e.g., Anderson, 2003). According to such an account, it is “active” retrieval that leads to interference. Extending this explanation to the language domain, semantic interference may be seen in picture naming but not in reading aloud because picture naming requires “active” lexical retrieval but reading aloud does not (e.g., Navarrete et al., 2010, 2014, 2016; Oppenheim et al., 2010). Under this explanation, one could consider “active” retrieval to mean semantically-mediated lexical selection.

  2. Note that the concepts of regularity and consistency are not exactly the same (e.g., Bonin et al., 2001; Jared, 2002; Lee, Tsai, Su, Tzeng, & Hung, 2005). Regularity is defined in terms of grapheme-to-phoneme correspondences (e.g., Coltheart et al., 2001). Words that have highly probable correspondences are considered regular (e.g., CAT), while those that do not are considered irregular/exception words whose spellings must be retrieved from long-term memory (e.g., YACHT). Regularity is sometimes treated as a categorical concept: if even one of the correspondences in a word is low probability, the word is irregular. On the other hand, consistency refers to broader orthography–phonology mappings (e.g., Peereman & Content, 1999; Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989). The patterns of letters in consistent words are always pronounced the same way (e.g., -UST in DUST), whereas the patterns of letters in inconsistent words have multiple possible pronunciations (e.g., -INT in MINT and PINT). Consistency is sometimes treated as a more graded measure. Overall, it is difficult to disentangle regularity and consistency in alphabetic languages. In the current work, we will manipulate phoneme-to-grapheme correspondences and refer to this as a manipulation of regularity.

  3. As in reading aloud, one could consider semantically-mediated lexical selection to be “active” retrieval. In accordance with the parallels between the memory and language literatures drawn previously, one would again expect to see semantic interference for written picture naming but not written spelling to dictation since written picture naming requires “active” retrieval but written spelling to dictation does not.

  4. Across the studies reported here, similar results were obtained for models including raw and log-transformed response times.

  5. Note that similar results were obtained in Experiments 2 and 3 when response time was measured from the beginning of each recording (including the added silence) regardless of whether the real acoustic duration of the word was taken into account.

References

  • Afonso, O., & Álvarez, C. J. (2011). Phonological effects in handwriting production: Evidence from the implicit priming paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1474–1483. doi:10.1037/a0024515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alario, F.-X., De Cara, B., & Ziegler, J. C. (2007). Automatic activation of phonology in silent reading is parallel: Evidence from beginning and skilled readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 97, 205–219. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.02.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. C. (2003). Rethinking interference theory: Executive control and the mechanisms of forgetting. Journal of Memory and Language. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2003.08.006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belke, E. (2008). Effects of working memory load on lexical–semantic encoding in language production. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 357–363. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.2.357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belke, E. (2013). Long-lasting inhibitory semantic context effects on object naming are necessarily conceptually mediated: Implications for models of lexical–semantic encoding. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 228–256. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2013.05.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belke, E., Brysbaert, M., Meyer, A. S., & Ghyselinck, M. (2005a). Age of acquisition effects in picture naming: Evidence for a lexical–semantic competition hypothesis. Cognition, 96, 45–54. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.11.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belke, E., Meyer, A. S., & Damian, M. F. (2005b). Refractory effects in picture naming as assessed in a semantic blocking paradigm. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 58, 667–692. doi:10.1080/02724980443000142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belke, E., & Stielow, A. (2013). Cumulative and non-cumulative semantic interference in object naming: Evidence from blocked and continuous manipulations of semantic context. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 2135–2160. doi:10.1080/17470218.2013.775318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1348/000712602162463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonin, P., Collay, S., Fayol, M., & Méot, A. (2005). Attentional strategic control over nonlexical and lexical processing in written spelling to dictation in adults. Memory & Cognition, 33, 59–75. doi:10.3758/BF03195297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonin, P., & Fayol, M. (2000). Writing words from pictures: What representations are activated, and when? Memory & Cognition, 28, 677–689. doi:10.3758/BF03201257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonin, P., Fayol, M., & Peereman, R. (1998). Masked form priming in writing words from pictures: Evidence for direct retrieval of orthographic codes. Acta Psychologica, 99, 311–328. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(98)00017-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1080/17470218.2014.978877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonin, P., Méot, A., Millotte, S., & Barry, C. (2013). Individual differences in adult handwritten spelling-to-dictation. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonin, P., Peereman, R., & Fayol, M. (2001). Do phonological codes constrain the selection of orthographic codes in written picture naming? Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 688–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1037/a0028471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breining, B. L., Nozari, N., & Rapp, B. C. (2016). Does segmental overlap help or hurt? Evidence from blocked cyclic naming in spoken and written production. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 500–506. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0900-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. S. (1981). Inhibition in cued retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 7, 204–215. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.7.3.204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchwald, A., & Rapp, B. C. (2009). Distinctions between orthographic long-term memory and working memory. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 26, 724–751. doi:10.1080/02643291003707332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caramazza, A., & Hillis, A. E. (1990). Where do semantic errors come from? Cortex, 26, 95–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC Psycholinguistic Database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 497–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. C. (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  Google Scholar 

  • Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45. doi:10.20982/tqmp.01.1.p042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowther, J. E., & Martin, R. C. (2014). Lexical selection in the semantically blocked cyclic naming task: The role of cognitive control and learning. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1–20. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damian, M. F., & Als, L. C. (2005). Long-lasting semantic context effects in the spoken production of object names. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1372–1384. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damian, M. F., Vigliocco, G., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2001). Effects of semantic context in the naming of pictures and words. Cognition, 81, B77–B86. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00135-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delattre, M., Bonin, P., & Barry, C. (2006). Written spelling to dictation: Sound-to-spelling regularity affects both writing latencies and durations. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1330–1340. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.32.6.1330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, A. W., & Young, A. W. (1988). Human Cognitive Neuropsychology. Hove, UK: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer-Baum, S., Dickson, D. S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2014). Frequency and regularity effects in reading are task dependent: Evidence from ERPs. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 1–14. doi:10.1080/23273798.2014.927067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer-Baum, S., & Rapp, B. (2012). Underlying cause(s) of letter perseveration errors. Neuropsychologia, 50, 305–318. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folk, J. R., Rapp, B., & Goldrick, M. (2002). The interaction of lexical and sublexical information in spelling: What’s the point? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 19, 653–671. doi:10.1080/02643290244000184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fry, E. (2004). Phonics: A large phoneme–grapheme frequency count revised. Journal of Literacy Research, 36, 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldrick, M., Folk, J. R., & Rapp, B. C. (2010). Mrs. Malaprop’s neighborhood: Using word errors to reveal neighborhood structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 113–134. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.11.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, R. A., & Caramazza, A. (1986). Aspects of the spelling process: Evidence from a case of acquired dysgraphia. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 236–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman-Schulman, R. (1988). Orthographic ambiguity: Comments on Baxter and Warington. Cortex, 24, 129–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, P. R., Hanna, J. S., Hodges, R. E., & Rudorf, E. H. (1966). Phoneme–grapheme correspondences as cues to spelling improvement. Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillis, A. E., & Caramazza, A. (1991). Mechanisms for accessing lexical representations for output: Evidence from a category-specific semantic deficit. Brain and Language, 40, 106–144. doi:10.1016/0093-934X(91)90119-L.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, D., Nickels, L., Coltheart, M., & Cole-Virtue, J. (2006). Cumulative semantic inhibition in picture naming: Experimental and computational studies. Cognition, 100, 464–482. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.02.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, G. W., Evett, L., & Taylor, D. (1982). Automatic phonological priming in visual word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 10, 576–590. doi:10.3758/BF03202440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, N., Carreiras, M., & Barber, H. A. (2011). Electrophysiological effects of semantic context in picture and word naming. NeuroImage, 57, 1243–1250. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.05.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jared, D. (2002). Spelling-sound consistency and regularity effects in word naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 723–750. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Categorical interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence: Brown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259–284. doi:10.1080/01638539809545028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, M., Macaruso, P., & Rapp, B. (2006). Graphemeto-lexeme feedback in the spelling system: Evidence from a dysgraphic patient. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23, 278–307. doi:10.1080/02643290442000518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miceli, G., & Capasso, R. (1997). Semantic errors as neuropsychological evidence for the independence and the interaction of orthographic and phonological word forms. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 733–764. doi:10.1080/016909697386673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirman, D. (2014). Growth curve analysis and visualization using R. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.

    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 

  • Navarrete, E., Del Prato, P., Peressotti, F., & Mahon, B. Z. (2014). Lexical retrieval is not by competition: Evidence from the Blocked Naming Paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 253–272. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2014.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navarrete, E., Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2010). The cumulative semantic cost does not reflect lexical selection by competition. Acta Psychologica, 134, 279–289. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.02.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navarrete, E., Mahon, B. Z., Lorenzoni, A., & Peressotti, F. (2016). What can written-words tell us about lexical retrieval in speech production? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–12. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickels, L. (2001). Spoken word production. In B. Rapp (Ed.), The handbook of cognitive neuropsychology: What deficits reveal about the human mind (pp. 291–320). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozari, N., Freund, M., Breining, B. L., Rapp, B. C., & Gordon, B. (2016). Cognitive control during selection and repair in word production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 886–903. doi:10.1080/23273798.2016.1157194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim, G. M., Dell, G. S., & Schwartz, M. F. (2010). The dark side of incremental learning: A model of cumulative semantic interference during lexical access in speech production. Cognition, 114, 227–252. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.09.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paap, K. R., & Noel, R. W. (1991). Dual-route models of print to sound: Still a good horse race. Psychological Research, 53, 13–24. doi:10.1007/BF00867328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, K. (1986). Lexical but nonsemantic spelling? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 3, 341–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peereman, R., & Content, A. (1999). LEXOP: A lexical database providing orthography–phonology statistics for French monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 376–379. doi:10.3758/BF03207735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. Y., Tsai, J. L., Su, E. C. I., Tzeng, O. J. L., & Hung, D. L. (2005). Consistency, regularity, and frequency effects in naming chinese characters. Language and Linguistics, 6, 75–107. www.ling.sinica.edu.tw/files/publication/j2005_1_03_9113.pdf.

  • R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/.

  • Rapp, B. C., Benzing, L., & Caramazza, A. (1997). The autonomy of lexical orthography. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 71–104. doi:10.1080/026432997381628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, B. C., & Caramazza, A. (1997). The modality-specific organization of grammatical categories: Evidence from impaired spoken and written sentence production. Brain and Language, 286, 248–286. doi:10.1006/brln.1997.1735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, B. C., Epstein, C., & Tainturier, M.-J. (2002). The integration of information across lexical and sublexical processes in spelling. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 19, 1–29. doi:10.1080/0264329014300060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rastle, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2006). Masked phonological priming effects in English: Are they real? Do they matter? Cognitive Psychology, 53, 97–145. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roeltgen, D. P., Rothi, L. J. G., & Heilman, K. M. (1986). Linguistic semantic agraphia: A dissociation of the lexical spelling system from semantics. Brain and Language, 27, 257–280. doi:10.1016/0093-934X(86)90020-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnur, T. T. (2014). The persistence of cumulative semantic interference during naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 75, 27–44. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2014.04.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnur, T. T., Schwartz, M. F., Brecher, A., & Hodgson, C. (2006). Semantic interference during blocked-cyclic naming: Evidence from aphasia. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 199–227. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.10.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523–568. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, X. R., Damian, M. F., & Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H. (2013). Abstract graphemic representations support preparation of handwritten responses. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 69–84. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tainturier, M.-J., Moreaud, O., David, D., Leek, E. C., & Pellat, J. (2001). Superior written over spoken picture naming in a case of frontotemporal dementia. Neurocase, 7, 89–96. doi:10.1093/neucas/7.1.89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tainturier, M.-J., & Rapp, B. C. (2001). The spelling process. In B. C. Rapp (Ed.), The handbook of cognitive neuropsychology: What deficits reveal about the human mind (pp. 263–290). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeldon, L., & Monsell, S. (1994). Inhibition of spoken word production by priming a semantic competitor. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 332–356. doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Q., & Damian, M. F. (2010). Impact of phonology on the generation of handwritten responses: Evidence from picture-word interference tasks. Memory & Cognition, 38, 519–528. doi:10.3758/MC.38.4.519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the support provided by NIH Grant DC006740 for the investigation of the neural and cognitive bases of post-stroke recovery in dysgraphia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cognitive Science, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD, 21211, USA

    Bonnie Breining & Brenda Rapp

Authors
  1. Bonnie Breining
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brenda Rapp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bonnie Breining.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Breining, B., Rapp, B. Investigating the mechanisms of written word production: insights from the written blocked cyclic naming paradigm. Read Writ 32, 65–94 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9742-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9742-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation