This study investigated whether in speech production object properties flow in a cascaded manner or whether cascaded processing is restricted to the object's identity. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants saw pictured objects and had to state either their size (GRAND or PETIT—meaning big and small) or their name. The size of the objects varied as a function of the way they were presented on the computer screen (Experiment 1) or their real size in the world (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, faces of young and old men were coloured in yellow or in green. The task was to name either the colour (JAUNE or VERT, meaning yellow and green, respectively) or the age (JEUNE or VIEUX, meaning young and old, respectively) of the face. In Experiments 1 and 2, no reliable effects of phonological relatedness (“GORILLE–grand”—a big gorilla) were found on the object-naming latencies. However, size-naming latencies were shorter when the adjective shared the initial phoneme of the picture name (i.e., “GRAND–gorille”) than when it did not (i.e., “GRAND–dinosaure”—saying “big” in response to a big dinosaur). In Experiment 3, phonological overlap did not affect colour naming latencies, or age naming latencies. Overall, these findings strongly suggest that cascaded processing is restricted to the object's identity in conceptually driven naming tasks.
AlarioF.-X., & FerrandL. (1999). A set of 400 pictures standardized for French: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, and age of acquisition. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 531–552.
2.
BaayenR. H., DavidsonD. J., & BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.
3.
BalotaD. A., YapM. J., CorteseM. J., HutchisonK. A., KesslerB., LoftisB., & … TreimanR. (2007). The English Lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.
4.
BatesD. M. (2005). Fitting linear mixed models in R. R News, 5, 27–30.
BloemI., & La HeijW. (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.
7.
BoninP., ChalardM., MéotA., & FayolM. (2002). The determinants of spoken and written picture naming latencies. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 89–114.
8.
BoninP., PeeremanR., MalardierN., MéotA., & ChalardM. (2003). A new set of 299 pictures for psycholinguistic studies: French norms for name agreement, image agreement, conceptual familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, age of acquisition, and naming latencies. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 158–167.
9.
BoninP., RouxS., BarryC., CanellL. (2012). Evidence for a limited-cascading account of written word naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 38, 1741–1758.
10.
BrysbaertM., KeuleersE., & NewB. (2011). Assessing the usefulness of Google Books' word frequencies for psycholinguistic research on word processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 27
11.
CaramazzaA. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access?. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177–208.
12.
ChateauD., & LupkerS. J. (2003). Strategic effects in word naming: Examining the route-emphasis versus time-criterion accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 139–151.
13.
CohenJ., McWhinneyB., FlattM., & ProvostJ. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 25, 257–271.
14.
CuttingJ. C., & FerreiraV. S. (1999). Semantic and phonological information flow in the production lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 318–344.
15.
CycowiczY. M., FriedmanD., RothsteinM., & SnodgrassJ. G. (1997). Picture naming by young children: Norms for name agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 65, 171–237.
16.
DamianM. F., & MartinR. C. (1999). Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(2), 345–361.
17.
DellG. S., SchwartzM. F., MartinN., SaffranE. M., & GagnonD. A. (1997). Lexical access in aphasic and non-aphasic speakers. Psychological Review, 104, 801–838.
18.
DumayN., & DamianM. F. (2011). A word order constraint in single word production? Failure to replicate Janssen, Alario and Caramazza (2008). Psychological Science, 22, 559–561.
19.
Goldrick, M. (2006). Limited interaction in speech production: Chronometric, speech error, and neuropsychological evidence. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 817–855.
20.
HumphreysG. W., RiddochM. J., & QuinlanP. T. (1988). Cascade processes in picture naming identification. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5, 67–104.
21.
JanssenN., AlarioF.-X., & CaramazzaA. (2008). A word-order constraint on phonological activation. Psychological Science, 19, 216–220.
22.
JescheniakJ. D., OppermannF., HantschA., WagnerV., MädebachA., & SchriefersH. (2009). Do perceived context pictures automatically activate their phonological code?. Experimental Psychology, 56, 56–65.
23.
KangS. H. K., YapM. J., TseC., & KurbyC. A. (2011). Semantic size does not matter: “Bigger” words are not recognized faster. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1041–1047.
24.
KelloC. T., & KawamotoA. H. (1998). Runword: An IBM-PC software package for the collection and acoustic analysis of speeded naming responses. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 30, 371–383.
25.
KonkleT., & OlivaA. (2011). Canonical visual size for real-world objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 23–37.
26.
KonkleT., OliviaA. (2012). A familiar-size Stroop effect: Real-world size is an automatic property of object representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human, Perception and Performance, 38, 561–569.
27.
KuipersJ. R., & La HeijW. (2009). The limitations of cascading in the speech production system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 120–135.
28.
LeveltW. J. M., RoelofsA., & MeyerA. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–37.
29.
MädebachA., AlekseevaE., & JescheniakJ. D. (2011). Word order does not constrain phonological activation in single word production. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23, 837–842.
30.
MassonM. E. J. (2011). A tutorial on a practical bayesian alternative to null hypothesis significance testing. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 679–690.
31.
MeyerA. S., DamianM. F. (2007). Activation of distractor names in the picture-picture interference paradigm. Memory & Cognition, 35, 494–503.
32.
MinearM., & ParkD. C. (2004). A lifespan database of adult facial stimuli. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 630–633.
33.
MorsellaE., & MiozzoM. (2002). Evidence for a cascade model of lexical access in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 555–563.
34.
NavarreteE., CostaA. (2005). Phonological activation of ignored pictures: Further evidence for a cascade model of lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 359–377.
35.
NewB., PallierC., FerrandL., & MatosR. (2001). Une base de données lexicales du français contemporain sur internet: LEXIQUE [A lexical database for modern French on the Internet: LEXIQUE]. L'Année Pschologique, 101, 447–462.
36.
PetersonR. R., & SavoyP. (1998). Lexical selection and phonological encoding during language production: Evidence for cascaded processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 539–557.
37.
R Development Core Team. (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
38.
RafteryA. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. In MarsdenP. V. (Ed.), Sociological methodology, (pp. 111–196). Cambridge: Blackwell.
39.
Rapp, B., & Goldrick, M. (2000). Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production. Psychological Review, 107, 460–499.
40.
RastleK., & DavisM. (2002). On the complexities of measuring naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 307–314.
41.
RoelofsA. (2008). Tracing attention and the activation flow in spoken word planning using eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 353–368.
42.
RouxS., & BoninP. (2012). Cascaded processing in written naming: Evidence from the picture-picture interference paradigm. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 734–769.
SerenoS. C., O'DonnellP. J., & SerenoM. E. (2009). Size matters: Bigger is faster. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1115–1122.
46.
SnodgrassJ. G., & VanderwartM. (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.
47.
SzékelyA., & BatesE. (2000). Objective visual complexity as a variable in studies of picture naming. Center for Research in Language Newsletter, 12(2), 1–33, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego.
