The cognitive architecture that allows humans to retrieve words from the mental lexicon has been investigated for decades. While there is consensus regarding a two-step architecture involving lexical-conceptual and phonological word-form levels of processing, accounts of how activation spreads between them (e.g., in a serial, cascaded, or interactive fashion) remain contentious. In addition, production models differ with respect to whether selection occurs at lexical or postlexical levels. The purpose of this study was to examine whether mediated phonological–semantic relations (e.g., drip is phonologically related to drill that is semantically related to hammer) influence production in adults as predicted by models implementing cascaded processing and feedback between levels. Two experiments using the picture–word interference (PWI) paradigm were conducted using auditory (Exp. 1) and written (Exp. 2) distractors. We hypothesised that a mediated semantic interference effect would be observable in the former with the involvement of both spoken word production and recognition, and in the latter if lexical representations are shared between written and spoken words in English, as assumed by some production accounts. Furthermore, we hypothesised a mediated semantic interference effect would be inconsistent with a postlexical selection account as the distractors do not constitute a relevant response for the target picture (e.g., drip-HAMMER). We observed mediated semantic interference only from auditory distractors, while observing the standard semantic interference effect from both auditory and written distractors. The current findings represent the first chronometric evidence involving spoken word production and recognition in support of cascaded processing during lexical retrieval in adults and present a significant challenge for the postlexical selection account.
Abdel RahmanR.MelingerA. (2008). Enhanced phonological facilitation and traces of concurrent word form activation in speech production: An object-naming study with multiple distractors. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(9), 1410–1440. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701560724
2.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802597250
3.
Audacity Team. (2019). Audacity(R): Free audio editor and recorder.
4.
BalotaD. A.YapM. J.CorteseM. J.HutchisonK. A.KesslerB.LoftisB.TreimanR. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193014
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB. M.WalkerS. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
7.
BergT.SchadeU. (1992). The role of inhibition in a spreading-activation model of language production. I. The psycholinguistic perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 405–434.
8.
BürkiA.ElbuyS.MadecS.VasishthS. (2020). What did we learn from forty years of research on semantic interference? A Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 114, 104125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104125
9.
CaramazzaA. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access?Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14(1), 177–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/026432997381664
10.
CaramazzaA.CostaA. (2000). The semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm: Does the response set matter?Cognition, 75(2), B51–B64.
CheeQ. W.ChowK. J.YapM. J.GohW. D. (2020). Consistency norms for 37,677 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 2535–2555. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01391-7
13.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.2.345
14.
DellG. S.SullivanJ. (2004). Speech errors and language production: Neuropsychological and connectionist perspectives. In RossB. (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 44, pp. 63–108). Academic Press.
DellG. S.O’SeaghdhaP. G. (1991). Mediated and convergent lexical priming in language production: A comment on Levelt et al. (1991). Psychological Review, 98(4), 604–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.4.604
DellG. S.SchwartzM. F.MartinN.SaffranE. M.GagnonD. A. (1997). Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychological Review, 104(4), 801–838. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.4.801
19.
de ZubicarayG.McMahonK.EastburnM.PringleA. (2006). Top-down influences on lexical selection during spoken word production: A 4T fMRI investigation of refractory effects in picture naming. Human Brain Mapping, 27(11), 864–873. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20227
20.
DhoogeE.HartsuikerR. J. (2011). The distractor frequency effect in a delayed picture-word interference task: Further evidence for a late locus of distractor exclusion. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18(1), 116–122. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-010-0026-0
21.
DuñabeitiaJ. A.CrepaldiD.MeyerA. S.NewB.PliatsikasC.SmolkaE.BrysbaertM. (2018). MultiPic: A standardized set of 750 drawings with norms for six European languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(4), 808–816. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1310261
22.
FarrellM. T.AbramsL.WhiteK. K. (2012). The role of priming in lexical access and speech production. In HsuN.SchüttZ. (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive psychology. Psychology of priming (pp. 205–244). Nova Science Publishers.
23.
GauvinH. S.JonenM. K.ChoiJ.McMahonK.de ZubicarayG. I. (2018). No lexical competition without priming: Evidence from the picture–word interference paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(12), 2562–2570. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021817747266
24.
GauvinH. S.McMahonK. L.de ZubicarayG. I. (2020). Top-down resolution of lexico-semantic competition in speech production and the role of the left inferior frontal gyrus: An fMRI study. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 36(1), 1–12.
25.
GlaserW. R.DüngelhoffF. J. (1984). The time course of picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), 640–654. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.10.5.640
26.
GoldrickM. (2006). Limited interaction in speech production: Chronometric, speech error, and neuropsychological evidence. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(7–8), 817–855. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960600824112
Hahs-VaughnD. L.LomaxR. G. (2012). An introduction to statistical concepts (3rd ed.). Routledge.
29.
HarleyT. A. (1993). Phonological activation of semantic competitors during lexical access in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969308406957
30.
HarleyT. A.MacAndrewS. B. G. (2001). Constraints upon word substitution speech errors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(4), 395–418. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010421724343
31.
HoffmanP.Lambon RalphM. A.RogersT. T. (2013). Semantic diversity: A measure of semantic ambiguity based on variability in the contextual usage of words. Behavior Research Methods, 45(3), 718–730. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0278-x
32.
IndefreyP. (2011, October). The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components: A critical update. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 255. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00255
JescheniakJ. D.HahneA.HoffmannS.WagnerV. (2006). Phonological activation of category coordinates during speech planning is observable in children but not in adults: Evidence for cascaded processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 32, 373–386. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.3.373
36.
JescheniakJ. D.HahneA.SchriefersH. (2003). Information flow in the mental lexicon during speech planning: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 15(3), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(02)00198-2
37.
JescheniakJ. D.KurtzF.SchriefersH.GüntherJ.KlausJ.MädebachA. (2017). Words we do not say-Context effects on the phonological activation of lexical alternatives in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 43(6), 1194–1206. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000352
38.
JescheniakJ. D.SchriefersH. (1998). Discrete serial versus cascaded processing in lexical access in speech production: Further evidence from the coactivation of near-synonyms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 24(5), 1256–1274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.5.1256
39.
KeppelG. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.
KupermanV.Stadthagen-GonzalezH.BrysbaertM. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 978–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0210-4
42.
LenthR. V. (2016). Least-squares means: The (R) package (lsmeans). Journal of Statistical Software, 69(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v069.i01
43.
LeveltW. J. (2001). Spoken word production: A theory of lexical access. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(23), 13464–13471. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.231459498
44.
LeveltW. J.RoelofsA.MeyerA. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1–38; discussion 38–75.
45.
LevinJ. R.RosenthalR.RosnowR. L. (1987). Contrast analysis: Focused comparisons in the analysis of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association. https://doi.org/10.2307/2289419
LupkerS. J. (1988). Picture naming: An investigation of the nature of categorical priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 444–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.444
48.
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(3), 503–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.503
49.
MATLAB. (2017). version 9.3.0 (R2017b). Natick, MA: The MathWorks Inc.
50.
The Mathworks Inc. (2017). MATLAB.
51.
MatuschekH.KlieglR.VasishthS.BaayenH.BatesD. (2017). Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001
52.
O’SeaghdhaP. G.MarinJ. W. (1997). Mediated semantic-phonological priming: Calling distant relatives. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(2), 226–252. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.2488
53.
PetersonR. R.SavoyP. (1998). Lexical selection and phonological encoding during language production: Evidence for cascaded processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(3), 539–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.3.539
54.
PiaiV.RoelofsA.van der MeijR. (2012). Event-related potentials and oscillatory brain responses associated with semantic and Stroop-like interference effects in overt naming. Brain Research, 1450, 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BRAINRES.2012.02.050
55.
PickeringM. J.GarrodS. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001495
RoelofsA. (2003). Modeling the relation between the production and recognition of spoken word forms. In MeyerA. S.SchillerN. O. (Ed.), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities (pp. 115–158). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895094.115
61.
RosinskiR. R.GolinkoffR. M.KukishK. S. (1975). Automatic semantic processing in a picture-word interference task. Child Development, 46(1), 247. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128859
62.
RouxF.ArmstrongB. C.CarreirasM. (2017). Chronset: An automated tool for detecting speech onset. Behavior Research Methods, 49(5), 1864–1881. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0830-1
63.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90011-N
64.
StarreveldP. A.La HeijW. (1995). Semantic interference, orthographic facilitation, and their interaction in naming tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(3), 686–698. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.3.686
65.
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(4), 896–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.4.896
66.
StembergerJ. P. (1985). An interactive activation model of language production. In EllisA. W. (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language (pp. 143–186). Erlbaum.
67.
SuárezL.TanS. H.YapM. J.GohW. D. (2011). Observing neighborhood effects without neighbors. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18(3), 605–611. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0078-9
68.
van CasterenM.DavisM. H. (2006). Mix, a program for pseudorandomization. Behavior Research Methods, 38(4), 584–589. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193889
69.
WarrinerA. B.KupermanV.BrysbaertM. (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1191–1207. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0314-x
70.
WolfeM. B. W.GoldmanS. R. (2003). Use of latent semantic analysis for predicting psychological phenomena: Two issues and proposed solutions. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35, 22–31. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195494
71.
YarkoniT.BalotaD.YapM. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15(5), 971–979. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.5.971
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.
