Over the past 40 years, researchers have assumed that semantic interference effects in picture naming reflect competition among lexical candidates during retrieval. In this study, we examined the role of the familiarisation phase in which participants are shown the target pictures and required to rehearse the appropriate names before the picture–word interference (PWI) paradigm is performed. A previous study reported that omitting the familiarisation phase reversed the polarity of the semantic effect to facilitation. In two experiments using between- and within-participants design, respectively, we compared PWI performance with and without familiarisation while using matched stimuli and task parameters. Overall, the results showed the typical semantic interference effect following familiarisation. However, in both experiments, naming latencies did not differ significantly between related and unrelated distractors when familiarisation was omitted. The current findings suggest that familiarisation plays an important role in determining semantic interference in PWI, most likely via raising lexical competitor activation by priming links between targets and related concepts. We also discuss broader implications of our findings with respect to the replicability of reported semantic facilitation effects in PWI.
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.
AlarioF.-X.SeguiJ.FerrandL. (2000). Semantic and associative priming in picture naming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 53, 741–764.
4.
BalotaD. A.AschenbrennerA. J.YapM. J. (2013). Additive effects of word frequency and stimulus quality: The influence of trial history and data transformations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1563–1571.
5.
BarryC.MorrisonC. M.EllisA. W. (1997). Naming the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures: Effects of age of acquisition, frequency, and name agreement. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 50, 560–585. doi:10.1080/783663595
6.
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.
7.
CaramazzaA. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access?Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177–208.
8.
CaramazzaA.CostaA. (2000). The semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm: Does the response set matter?Cognition, 75(2), B51–B64.
9.
CollinaS.TabossiP.De SimoneF. (2013). Word production and the picture-word interference paradigm: The role of learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 461–473.
10.
CollinsA. M.LoftusE. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407. doi:10.1037/0033–295X.82.6.407
11.
CostaA.AlarioF.-X.CaramazzaA. (2005). On the categorical nature of the semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 125–131.
12.
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.
13.
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.
14.
DellG. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.
15.
DhoogeE.HartsuikerR. J. (2010). The distractor frequency effect in picture–word interference: Evidence for response exclusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(4), 878–891.
16.
DhoogeE.HartsuikerR. J. (2011a). The distractor frequency effect in a delayed picture-word interference task: Further evidence for response exclusion. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 116–122.
17.
DhoogeE.HartsuikerR. J. (2011b). How do speakers resist distraction? Evidence from a taboo picture-word interference paradigm. Psychological Science, 22, 855–859.
18.
DhoogeE.HartsuikerR. J. (2012). Lexical selection and verbal self-monitoring: Effects of lexicality, context, and time pressure in picture-word interference. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 163–176.
19.
DuñabeitiaJ. A.CrepaldiD.MeyerA. S.NewB.PliatsikasC.SmolkaE.. . . BrysbaertM. (in press). MultiPic: A standardized set of 750 drawings with norms for six European languages. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
20.
FinkbeinerM.CaramazzaA. (2006). Now you see it, now you don’t: On turning semantic interference into facilitation in a Stroop-like task. Cortex, 42, 790–796.
21.
GlaserW. R.DüngelhoffF. J. (1984). The time course of picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 10, 640–654. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6238124
22.
GlaserW. R.GlaserM. O. (1989). Context effects in Stroop-like word and picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 118(1), 13–42. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2522504
23.
HowardD.NickelsL.ColtheartM.Cole-VirtueJ. (2006). Cumulative semantic inhibition in picture naming: Experimental and computational studies. Cognition, 100, 464–482.
24.
HutsonJ.DamianM. F. (2014). Semantic gradients in picture-word interference tasks: Is the size of interference effects affected by the degree of semantic overlap?Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 872.
25.
JohnstonR. A.DentK.HumphreysG. W.BarryC. (2010). British-English norms and naming times for a set of 539 pictures: The role of age of acquisition. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 461–469.
26.
La HeijW. (1988). Components of Stroop-like interference in picture naming. Memory & Cognition, 16, 400–410.
27.
La HeijW.DirkxJ.KramerP. (1990). Categorical interference and associative priming in picture naming. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 511–525.
28.
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.
29.
La HeijW.van den HofE. (1995). Picture-word interference increases with target-set size. Psychological Research, 58, 119–133.
30.
LeveltW. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
31.
LeveltW. J. M.RoelofsA.MeyerA. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(01), 1–38.
32.
LoS.AndrewsS. (2015). To transform or not to transform: Using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–16.
33.
MahonB. Z.CostaA.PetersonR.VargasK. A.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.
34.
MuehlhausJ.HeimS.SachsO.SchneiderF.HabelU.SassK. (2013). Is the motor or the garage more important to the car? The difference between semantic associations in single word and sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42(1), 37–49.
35.
PiaiV.RoelofsA.SchriefersH. (2012). Distractor strength and selective attention in picture-naming performance. Memory & Cognition, 40, 614–627.
36.
PostmaA. (2000). Detection of errors during speech production: A review of speech monitoring models. Cognition, 77, 97–131.
37.
RoelofsA. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42, 107–142.
38.
RoelofsA. (1993). Testing a non-decompositional theory of lemma retrieval in speaking: Retrieval of verbs. Cognition, 47(1), 59–87. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8482071
39.
RoelofsA. (2001). Set size and repetition matter: Comment on Caramazza and Costa (2000). Cognition, 80, 283–290.
40.
RoelofsA. (2003). Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: Modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. Psychological Review, 110(1), 88–125.
41.
RosinskiR. R. (1977). Picture-word interference is semantically based. Child Development, 48, 643–647.
42.
RouderJ. N.MoreyR. D.SpeckmanP. L.ProvinceJ. M. (2012). Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56, 356–374.
43.
RouxF.ArmstrongB. C.CarreirasM. (2017). Chronset: An automated tool for detecting speech onset. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1864–1881.
44.
SailorK.BrooksP. J. (2014). Do part–whole relations produce facilitation in the picture–word interference task?The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1768–1785.
45.
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(1), 86–102.
46.
SchwarzG. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464. doi:10.1214/aos/1176344136
47.
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.
48.
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.
49.
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.
50.
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.
51.
ViethH. E.McMahonK. L.De ZubicarayG. I. (2014). The roles of shared vs. distinctive conceptual features in lexical access. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1014.
52.
ViglioccoG.VinsonD. P.LewisW.GarrettM. F. (2004). Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 422–488.
53.
WagenmakersE.-J.LoveJ.MarsmanM.JamilT.LyA.VerhagenJ.. . . MoreyR. D. (2017). Bayesian inference for psychology, part II: Example applications with JASP. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1–19. Advance online publication. doi:10.3758/s13423-017-1323-7
54.
YeeE.AhmedS. Z.Thompson-SchillS. L. (2012). Colorless green ideas (can) prime furiously. Psychological Science, 23, 364–369.
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.
