When producing words, it is generally agreed that semantically related words are activated along with the target. However, relatively little is known about the extent to which the number of such semantically related words affects the production of spoken words. The research presented here explores, in detail, the influence of semantic neighbourhood density—the number of words of similar meaning in the lexicon—on picture naming performance in both unimpaired speakers and a large group of individuals with aphasia. In Experiment 1, six different semantic neighbourhood density measures were compared using principal component analysis. Four different semantic neighbourhood density components were identified: feature-based, context-based, association-based, and distant. In Experiment 2, these new measures were used as predictors in an analysis of picture naming data from unimpaired English speakers: no significant effects of semantic neighbourhood factors were observed on either latency or accuracy. Finally, Experiment 3 reports an analysis of picture naming responses of a large group of individuals with aphasia (n = 193), examining the influence of the semantic neighbourhood density measures. Effects of the feature-based semantic neighbourhood measure on accuracy varied across participants with no overall main effect. This same measure increased the probability of a coordinate error compared with a correct response but also compared with an omission. Results are best accommodated by theories of word production that incorporate mechanisms by which semantically related concepts can both facilitate and inhibit target production.
Abdel-RahmanR.MelingerA. (2009). Semantic context effects in language production: A swinging lexical network proposal and a review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(5), 713–734.
2.
AlarioF.-X.FerrandL.LaganaroM.NewB.FrauenfelderU. H.SeguiJ. (2004). Predictors of picture naming speed. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 140–155. doi:10.3758/BF03195559
BaayenR. H.PiepenbrockR.van RijnH. (1993). The {CELEX} lexical data base on {CD-ROM}. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
5.
BardE. G.ShillcockR. C. (1993). Competitor effects during lexical access: Chasing Zipf’s tail. In AltmannA. T. M.ShillcockR. (Eds.), Cognitive models of speech processing: The second Sperlonga meeting (pp. 235–275). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-36611-010
6.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5823
7.
BelkeE.MeyerA. S.DamianM. F. (2005). 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
8.
BlankenG.DittmannJ.WalleschC.-W. (2002). Parallel or serial activation of word forms in speech production? Neurolinguistic evidence from an aphasic patient. Neuroscience Letters, 325, 72–74. doi:10.1016/S0304-3940(02)00227-6
9.
BormannT. (2011). The role of lexical-semantic neighborhood in object naming: Implications for models of lexical access. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 127. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00127
10.
BormannT.KulkeF.WalleschC.-W.BlankenG. (2008). Omissions and semantic errors in aphasic naming: Is there a link?Brain and Language, 104(1), 24–32. doi:10.1016/J.BANDL.2007.02.004
11.
BoxG. E. P.CoxD. R. (1964). An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 26, 211–252.
12.
BrysbaertM.NewB. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–990. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
13.
CaramazzaA. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access?Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177–208. doi:10.1080/026432997381664
14.
CarrollJ. B.WhiteM. N. (1973). Word frequency and age of acquisition as determiners of picture-naming latency. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 85–95. doi:10.1080/14640747308400325
15.
ChenQ.MirmanD. (2012). Competition and cooperation among similar representations: Toward a unified account of facilitative and inhibitory effects of lexical neighbors. Psychological Review, 119, 417–430. doi:10.1037/a0027175
ColtheartM. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 33, 497–505. doi:10.1080/14640748108400805
18.
DavisC. J. (2005). N-Watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 65–70. doi:10.3758/BF03206399
19.
De DeyneS.NavarroD. J.StormsG. (2013). Better explanations of lexical and semantic cognition using networks derived from continued rather than single-word associations. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 480–498. doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0260-7
20.
DellG. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283
21.
DellG. S.GordonJ. K. (2003). Neighbors in the lexicon! Friends or foes? In SchillerN. O.MeyerA. S. (Eds.), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production (pp. 9–47). New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
22.
DellG. S.O’SeaghdhaP. G. (1992). Stages of lexical access in language production. Cognition, 42, 287–314. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(92)90046-K
23.
DellG. S.SchwartzM. F.MartinN.SaffranE. M.GagnonD. A. (1997). Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychological Review, 104, 801–838. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.4.801
24.
DevereuxB. J.TylerL. K.GeertzenJ.RandallB. (2014). The centre for speech, language and the brain (CSLB) concept property norms. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 1119–1127. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0420-4
25.
EllisA. W.LumC.Lambon RalphM. A. (1996). On the use of regression techniques for the analysis of single case aphasic data. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 9, 165–174. doi:10.1016/0911-6044(96)00008-5
26.
FiederN.WartenburgerI.Abdel RahmanR. (2019). A close call: Interference from semantic neighbourhood density and similarity in language production. Memory & Cognition, 47, 145–168. doi:10.3758/s13421-018-0856-y
27.
ForsterK. I.ForsterJ. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124. doi:10.3758/BF03195503
28.
FoygelD.DellG. S. (2000). Models of impaired lexical access in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 182–216. doi:10.1006/JMLA.2000.2716
29.
GilhoolyK. J.LogieR. H. (1980). Meaning-dependent ratings of imagery, age of acquisition, familiarity, and concreteness for 387 ambiguous words. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 12, 428–450. doi:10.3758/BF03201694
30.
GlaserW. R.DüngelhoffF.-J. (1984). The time course of picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 640–654. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.10.5.640
31.
GoldrickM.RappB. (2002). A restricted interaction account (RIA) of spoken word production: The best of both worlds. Aphasiology, 16(1–2), 20–55. doi:10.1080/02687040143000203
32.
HameauS. (2016). Neighbourhood density effects in spoken word production (Doctoral dissertation). Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
HolmesS.EllisA. (2006). Age of acquisition and typicality effects in three object processing tasks. Visual Cognition, 13(7–8), 884–910.
35.
HowardD.NickelsL.ColtheartM.Cole-VirtueJ. (2006). Cumulative semantic inhibition in picture naming: Experimental and computational studies. Cognition, 100, 464–482. doi:10.1016/J.COGNITION.2005.02.006
36.
HowardD.PattersonK. (1992). The Pyramids and Palm Trees test: A test of semantic access from words and pictures. Burry St Edmonds, Suffolk: Thames Valley Test Company.
37.
HuntK. P.HodgeM. H. (1971). Category-item frequency and category-name meaningfulness (m’): Taxonomic norms for 84 categories. Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 4(6), 97–121. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1972-08239-001
38.
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. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.2.461
39.
KaiserH. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36. doi:10.1007/BF02291575
40.
KerteszA. (1982). Western aphasia battery: Test manual. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton.
41.
KittredgeA. K.DellG. S.SchwartzM. F. (2007a). Omissions in aphasic picture naming: Late age-of-acquisition is the culprit, not low semantic density. Brain and Language, 103(1–2), 132–133. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2007.07.081
42.
KittredgeA. K.DellG. S.SchwartzM. F. (2007b, October21–23). Omissions in aphasic picture naming: Late age-of-acquisition is the culprit, not low semantic density. Paper presented at the 45th Meeting of the Academy of Aphasia, Washington, DC.
43.
KupermanV.Stadthagen-GonzalezH.BrysbaertM. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 978–990. doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0210-4
44.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. doi:10.18637/jss.v082.i13
45.
LandauerT. K.FoltzP. W.LahamD. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259–284. doi:10.1080/01638539809545028
46.
LeeE. Y.SchwartzM. F.KohenF.MartinN. (2006). Facilitation, interference, and learning in blocked-cyclic lexical-access paradigms. Brain and Language, 99(1–2), 90–91. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2006.06.054
47.
LeveltW. J. M. (1989). Lexical entries and accessing lemmas. In. LeveltW. J. M. (Ed.), Speaking: From intention to articulation (pp. 181–234). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
48.
LeveltW. J. M.RoelofsA.MeyerA. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–37.
49.
LoessH.BrownA.CampbellJ. (1969). Cultural norms for items in 30 taxonomic categories. Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 3, 69–86.
50.
MarianV.BartolottiJ.ChabalS.ShookA. (2012). CLEARPOND: Cross-linguistic easy-access resource for phonological and orthographic neighborhood densities. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e43230. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0043230
51.
MartinN.FinkR.RenvallK.LaineM. (2006). Effectiveness of contextual repetition priming treatments for anomia depends on intact access to semantics. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 12, 853–866.
52.
McRaeK.CreeG. S.SeidenbergM. S.McNorganC. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 547–559. doi:10.3758/BF03192726
53.
MirmanD. (2011). Effects of near and distant semantic neighbors on word production. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 11, 32–43. doi:10.3758/s13415-010-0009-7
54.
MirmanD.GrazianoK. M. (2013). The neural basis of inhibitory effects of semantic and phonological neighbors in spoken word production. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 1504–1516. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00408
55.
MirmanD.MagnusonJ. S. (2008). Attractor dynamics and semantic neighborhood density: Processing is slowed by near neighbors and speeded by distant neighbors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 65–79. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.65
56.
MirmanD.StraussT. J.BrecherA.WalkerG. M.SobelP.DellG. S.SchwartzM. F. (2010). A large, searchable, web-based database of aphasic performance on picture naming and other tests of cognitive function. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 27, 495–504. doi:10.1080/02643294.2011.574112
57.
NelsonD. L.McEvoyC. L.SchreiberT. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 402–407. doi:10.3758/BF03195588
58.
NickelsL.HowardD. (1995). Aphasic naming: What matters?Neuropsychologia, 33, 1281–1303. doi:10.1016/0028-3932(95)00102-9
59.
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, 227–252. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.09.007
60.
PisoniD. B.NusbaumH. C.LuceP. A.SlowiaczekL. M. (1985). Speech perception, word recognition and the structure of the lexicon. Speech Communication, 4(1–3), 75–95. doi:10.1016/0167-6393(85)90037-8
61.
ProtopapasA. (2007). Check Vocal: A program to facilitate checking the accuracy and response time of vocal responses from DMDX. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 859–862. doi:10.3758/BF03192979
62.
RabovskyM.SchadD. J.Abdel RahmanR. (2016). Language production is facilitated by semantic richness but inhibited by semantic density: Evidence from picture naming. Cognition, 146, 240–244. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.016
63.
R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.r-project.org/
64.
RoachA.SchwartzM.MartinN.GrewalR. S.BrecherA. (1996). The Philadelphia Naming Test: Scoring and rationale. Clinical Aphasiology, 24, 121–133. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-27183-001
65.
RoelofsA. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42(1–3), 107–142. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(92)90041-F
66.
RoelofsA. (2018). A unified computational account of cumulative semantic, semantic blocking, and semantic distractor effects in picture naming. Cognition, 172, 59–72. doi:10.1016/J.COGNITION.2017.12.007
67.
RoschE. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192–233. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192
68.
RosinskiR. R.GolinkoffR. M.KukishK. S. (1975). Automatic semantic processing in a picture-word interference task. Child Development, 46, 247–253. doi:10.2307/1128859
69.
RossiterC.BestW. (2013). “Penguins don’t fly”: An investigation into the effect of typicality on picture naming in people with aphasia. Aphasiology, 27, 784–798.
70.
ShapiroS. I.PalermoD. S. (1970). Conceptual organization and class membership: Normative data for representatives of 100 categories. Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 3, 107–127. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1970-11832-001
71.
StorkelH. (2009). Developmental differences in the effects of phonological, lexical and semantic variables on word learning by infants. Journal of Child Language, 36, 291–321.
SzékelyA.JacobsenT.D’AmicoS.DevescoviA.AndonovaE.HerronD.BatesE. (2004). A new on-line resource for psycholinguistic studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 247–250. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.002
74.
UyedaK. M.MandlerG. (1980). Prototypicality norms for 28 semantic categories. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 12, 587–595. doi:10.3758/BF03201848
75.
Van OverscheldeJ. P.RawsonK. A.DunloskyJ. (2004). Category norms: An updated and expanded version of the Battig and Montague (1969) norms. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 289–335. doi:10.1016/J.JML.2003.10.003
76.
VenablesW. N.RipleyB. D. (1999). Modern applied statistics with S-PLUS. New York, NY: Springer.
77.
VitevitchM. S. (2002). The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 735–747. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.28.4.735
78.
WilsonM. (1988). MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine-usable dictionary, version 2.00. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 20, 6–10. doi:10.3758/BF03202594
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.
