Naming a picture is slower in categorically related compared with unrelated contexts, an effect termed semantic interference. This effect has informed the development of all contemporary models of lexical access in speech production. However, category members typically share visual features, so semantic interference might in part reflect this confound. Surprisingly, little work has addressed this issue, and the relative absence of evidence for visual form interference has been proposed to be problematic for production models implementing competitive lexical selection mechanisms. In a series of five experiments using two different naming paradigms, we demonstrate a reliable visual form interference effect in the absence of a category relation and show the effect is more likely to originate during lexical or later response selection than during perceptual/conceptual processing. We conclude visual form interference in naming is a significant complicating factor for studies of semantic interference effects and discuss the implications for current accounts of lexical access in spoken word production.
Abdel RahmanR.MelingerA. (2009). Semantic context effects in language production: A swinging lexical network proposal and a review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 713–734.
2.
Abdel RahmanR.MelingerA. (2011). The dynamic microstructure of speech production: Semantic interference built on the fly. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 149–161.
3.
AyoraP.PeressottiF.AlarioF.-X.MulattiC.PluchinoP.JobR.Dell’AcquaR. (2011). What phonological facilitation tells about semantic interference: a dual-task study. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 57.
4.
BelkeE. (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.
5.
BelkeE.MeyerA. S.DamianM. F. (2005). Refractory effects in picture naming as assessed in a semantic blocking paradigm. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, A, 58, 667–692.
6.
BelkeE.StielowA. (2013). Cumulative and non-cumulative semantic interference in object naming: evidence from blocked and continuous manipulations of semantic context. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 2135–2160.
7.
BiY.YuX.GengJ.AlarioF.-X. (2010). The role of visual form in lexical access: Evidence from Chinese classifier production. Cognition, 116, 101–109.
8.
BradyT. F.KonkleT.AlvarezG. A.OlivaA. (2008). Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 105, 14325–14329.
9.
CaramazzaA. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access?Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177–208.
10.
CaramazzaA.CostaA. (2000). The semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm: Does the response set matter?Cognition, 75, B51–B64.
11.
CaramazzaA.CostaA. (2001). Set size and repetition in the picture–word interference paradigm: Implications for models of naming. Cognition, 80, 291–298.
12.
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.
13.
DahanD.TanenhausM. K. (2005). Looking at the rope when looking for the snake: Conceptually mediated eye movements during spoken-word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 453–459.
14.
DamianM. F.AlsL. 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.
15.
DamianM. F.BowersJ. S. (2003). Locus of semantic interference in picture–word interference tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 111–117.
16.
DamianM. F.MartinR. C. (1999). Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 345.
17.
DamianM. F.SpalekK. (2014). Processing different kinds of semantic relations in picture-word interference with non-masked and masked distractors. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 604–615.
18.
DamianM. F.ViglioccoV.LeveltW. J. M. (2001). Effects of semantic context in the naming of pictures and words. Cognition, 81, B77–B86.
19.
De GrootF.KoelewijnT.HuettigF.OliversC. N. L. (2016). A stimulus set of words and pictures matched for visual and semantic similarity. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28, 1–15.
20.
DellG. S. (1986). A Spreading activation theory of retrieval and sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.
21.
DellG. S.O’SeaghdhaP. G. (1992). Stages of lexical access in language production. Cognition, 42, 287–314.
22.
Dell’AcquaR.JobR.PeressottiF.PascaliA. (2007). Picture-word interference effect is not a Stroop effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 717–722.
23.
FerreiraV. S.PashlerH. (2002). Central bottleneck influences on the processing stages of word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 1187–1199.
24.
GlaserW. R.GlaserM. O. (1989). Context effects on Stroop-like word and picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 13–42.
25.
GoldrickM.RappB. (2002). A restricted interaction account (RIA)of spoken word production: The best of both worlds. Aphasiology, 16, 20–55.
26.
GullbergM.NarasimhanB. (2010). What gestures reveal about the development of semantic distinctions in Dutch children’s placement verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 239–262.
27.
HockingJ.McMahonK.de ZubicarayG. (2009). Semantic context and visual feature effects in object naming: An fMRI study using arterial spin labelling. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 1571–1583.
28.
HowardD.NickelsL.ColtheartM.Cole-VirtueJ. (2006). Cumulative semantic inhibition in picture naming: Experimental and computational studies. Cognition, 100, 464–482.
29.
HuettigF.HartsuikerR. J. (2008). When you name the pizza you look at the coin and the bread: Eye movements reveal semantic activation during word production. Memory and Cognition, 36, 341–360.
30.
HumphreysG.Lloyd-JonesT.FiasW. (1995). Semantic interference effects on naming using a postcue procedure: Tapping the links between semantics and phonology with pictures and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 961–980.
31.
JescheniakJ. D.SchriefersH. J.HantschA. (2001). Semantic and phonological activation in noun and pronoun production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1058–1078.
32.
KleinmanD. (2013). Resolving semantic interference during word production requires central attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1860–1877.
33.
KrollJ. F.StewartE. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174.
34.
La HeijW. (1988). Components of Stroop-like interference in picture naming. Memory and Cognition, 16, 400–410.
35.
La HeijW.KuipersJ.-R.StarreveldP. A. (2006). In defense of the lexical-competition account of picture-word interference: A comment on Finkbeiner and Caramazza (2006). Cortex, 42, 1028–1031.
36.
LeveltW. J. M.RoelofsA.MeyerA. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.
37.
LottoL.JobR.RumiatiR. (1999). Visual effects in picture and word categorization. Memory and Cognition, 27, 674–684.
38.
LupkerS. J. (1979). The semantic nature of response competition in the picture–word interference task. Memory and Cognition, 7, 485–495.
39.
MädebachA.HantschA. (2013). Explaining semantic facilitation and interference effects in the picture-word interference task-A rejoinder to Navarrete and Mahon (2013). Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 717–722.
40.
MahonB. Z.CostaA.PetersonR.VargasK.CaramazzaA. (2007). Lexical selection is not by competition: A reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture–word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 503–535.
41.
McRaeK.CreeG.SeidenbergM.McNorganC. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 547–559.
42.
NavarreteE.Del PratoP.MahonB. Z. (2012). Factors determining semantic facilitation and interference in the cyclic naming paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 38.
43.
NavarreteE.Del PratoP.PeressottiF.MahonB. Z. (2014). Lexical selection is not by competition: Evidence from the blocked naming paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 253–272.
44.
NeumannO.KautzL. (1982). Semantische Förderung und semantische Interferenz im Benennungsexperiment [Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in a naming experiment] (Bericht Nr. 23/1982) [Report No. 23/1982]. Bochum, Germany: University of Bochum.
45.
OppenheimG. M.DellG. S.SchwartzM. F. (2010). The dark side of incremental learning: A model of cumulative semantic interference during lexical access in speech production. Cognition, 114, 227–262.
46.
PashlerH.JohnstonJ. C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. In PashlerH. (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155–189). Hove, England: Psychology Press/Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & Francis.
47.
PiaiV.RoelofsA.SchreifersH. (2014). Locus of semantic interference in picture naming: Evidence from dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 147–165.
48.
PiaiV.RoelofsA.SchriefersH. (2012). Distractor strength and selective attention in picture naming performance. Memory & Cognition, 40, 614–627.
49.
RaaijmakersJ. G. W.SchrijnemakersJ. M. C.GremmenF. (1999). How to deal with “the language-as-fixed-effect fallacy”: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 416–416.
50.
RileyE.McMahonK.de ZubicarayG. (2015). Long-lasting semantic interference effects in object naming are not necessarily conceptually mediated. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 578.
51.
RoelofsA. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42, 107–142.
52.
RoelofsA. (2001). Set size and repetition matter: Comment on Caramazza and Costa (2000). Cognition, 80, 283–290.
53.
RoelofsA. (2003). Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: Modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. Psychological Review, 110, 88–125.
54.
RosinskiR. R. (1977). Picture–word interference is semantically based. Child Development, 46, 247–253.
55.
RouderJ. N.MoreyR. D.SpeckmanP. L.ProvinceJ. M. (2012). Default Bayes factors for ANOVA Designs. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56, 356–374.
56.
SchnurT. T.MartinR. (2012). Semantic picture-word interference is a postperceptual effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 301–308.
57.
SchriefersH.MeyerA. S.LeveltW. J. M. (1990). Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 86–102.
58.
StarreveldP. A.La HeijW. (1995). Semantic interference, orthographic facilitation, and their interaction in naming tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 686–698.
59.
StarreveldP. A.La HeijW. (1996). Time-course analysis of semantic and orthographic context effects in picture naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 896–918.
60.
SzekelyA.JacobsenT.D’AmicoS.DevescoviA.AndonovaE.HerronD.. . . BatesE. (2004). A new on-line resource for psycholinguistic studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 247–250.
61.
van CasterenM.DavisM. H. (2006). Mix, a program for pseudorandomization. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 584–589.
62.
van MaanenL.van RijnH.TaatgenN. (2012). RACE/A: An architectural account of the interactions between learning, task control, and retrieval dynamics. Cognitive Science, 36, 62–101.
63.
ViglioccoG.VinsonD. P.LewisW.GarrettM. F. (2004). Representing the meanings of object and actions words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 422–488.
64.
WagenmakersE.-J.LoveJ.MarsmanM.JamilT.LyA.VerhagenJ.. . . MoreyR. D. (2017). Bayesian inference for psychology, part II: Example applications with JASP. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.3758/s13423-017-1323-7
65.
YeeE.HuffstetlerS.Thompson-SchillS. L. (2011). Function follows form: Activation of shape and function features during object identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 348–363.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
