Investigations of effects of semantic variables on picture naming have often been inconclusive, with some studies reporting significant and others non-significant effects. One potential explanation may relate to the specific naming tasks used: While most previous studies have used standard picture naming, others have used speeded naming that requires participants to prioritise naming speed over accuracy. Speeded naming has been suggested to cause enhanced effects of item-inherent word characteristics due to disruptions of cognitive control and resulting modulations of responsiveness to input. Consequently, this study investigated whether effects are stronger in speeded compared to standard picture naming, focusing on six feature-based semantic variables: number of semantic features, intercorrelational density, number of near semantic neighbours, semantic similarity, typicality, and distinctiveness. The results showed few differences in the variables’ effects between the two naming tasks: In the naming latency analysis, the inhibitory effect of distinctiveness was stronger in the speeded naming task, while in the accuracy analysis the effect of number of semantic features was stronger in the standard naming task. These findings cannot, therefore, be exclusively accounted for by increased responsiveness to input in speeded naming and we discuss possible underlying mechanisms. We conclude that, while some differences in effects of semantic variables between previous studies may have been caused by the specific naming task used, differences between studies more likely depend on statistical power and control of other influential variables in the experiment.
Abdel RahmanR.MelingerA. (2019). Semantic processing during language production: An update of the swinging lexical network. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(9), 1176–1192. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1599970
2.
AlarioF.-X.FerrandL.LaganaroM.NewB.FrauenfelderU. H.SeguiJ. (2004). Predictors of picture naming speed. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(1), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195559
3.
BaayenH. R.MilinP. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.807
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
6.
BishopD. V. M. (2018). Fallibility in science: Responding to errors in the work of oneself and others. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 432–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918776632
7.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2019). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0.49). http://www.praat.org/
8.
BormannT. (2011). The role of lexical-semantic neighborhood in object naming: Implications for models of lexical access. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00127
9.
ColtheartM.RastleK.PerryC.LangdonR.ZieglerJ. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108(1), 204–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.1.204
10.
CreeG. S.McRaeK.McNorganC. (1999). An attractor model of lexical conceptual processing: Simulating semantic priming. Cognitive Science, 23(3), 371–414. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2303_4
11.
DamianM. F.DumayN. (2007). Time pressure and phonological advance planning in spoken production. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(2), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.11.001
DellG. S.BurgerL. K.SvecW. R. (1997). Language production and serial order: A functional analysis and a model. Psychological Review, 104(1), 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.1.123
14.
Dell’AcquaR.LottoL.JobR. (2000). Naming times and standardized norms for the Italian PD/DPSS set of 266 pictures: Direct comparisons with American, English, French, and Spanish published databases. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32(4), 588–615. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200832
FiederN.WartenburgerI.Abdel RahmanR. (2019). A close call: Interference from semantic neighbourhood density and similarity in language production. Memory & Cognition, 47(1), 145–168. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0856-y
GottsS. J.PlautD. C. (2002). The impact of synaptic depression following brain damage: A connectionist account of “access/refractory” and “degraded-store” semantic impairments. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 2(3), 187–213. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.2.3.187
19.
GrossmanM.RobinsonK.BiassouN.White-DevineT.D’EspositoM. (1998). Semantic memory in Alzheimer’s disease: Representativeness, ontologic category, and material. Neuropsychology, 12(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.12.1.34
20.
HameauS.NickelsL.BiedermannB. (2019). Effects of semantic neighbourhood density on spoken word production. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(12), 2752–2775. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819859850
21.
HodgsonC.Lambon RalphM. A. (2008). Mimicking aphasic semantic errors in normal speech production: Evidence from a novel experimental paradigm. Brain and Language, 104(1), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2007.03.007
22.
HolmesS. J.EllisA. W. (2006). Age of acquisition and typicality effects in three object processing tasks. Visual Cognition, 13(7–8), 884–910. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280544000093
23.
HowardD.NickelsL.ColtheartM.Cole-VirtueJ. (2006). Cumulative semantic inhibition in picture naming: Experimental and computational studies. Cognition, 100(3), 464–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.02.006
24.
HumphreysG. W.LamoteC.Lloyd-JonesT. J. (1995). An interactive activation approach to object processing: Effects of structural similarity, name frequency, and task in normality and pathology. Memory, 3(3–4), 535–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658219508253164
25.
HumphreysG. W.RiddochM. J.QuinlanP. T. (1988). Cascade processes in picture identification. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5(1), 67–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643298808252927
KelloC. T. (2004). Control over the time course of cognition in the tempo-naming task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(5), 942–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.5.942
28.
KelloC. T.PlautD. C. (2000). Strategic control in word reading: Evidence from speeded responding in the tempo-naming task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 719–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.3.719
29.
KelloC. T.PlautD. C. (2003). Strategic control over rate of processing in word reading: A computational investigation. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 207–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00512-0
30.
KelloC. T.PlautD. C.MacWhinneyB. (2000). The task dependence of staged versus cascaded processing: An empirical and computational study of stroop interference in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(3), 340–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.129.3.340
31.
KelloC. T.SibleyD. E.PlautD. C. (2005). Dissociations in performance on novel versus irregular items: Single-route demonstrations with input gain in localist and distributed models. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 627–654. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_16
32.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
33.
LampeL. F.BürkiA.SowmanP. F.HameauS.NickelsL. (2021). Effects of semantic variables on processes during word planning for production: Evidence from electrophysiological data [Manuscript in preparation]. Macquarie University and University of Potsdam.
34.
LampeL. F.FiederN.KrajenbrinkT.NickelsL. (2017). Semantische Nachbarschaft in der Wortproduktion bei Aphasie [Semantic neighbourhood in word production in aphasia]. In AdeltA.YetimÖ.OttoC.FritzscheT. (Eds.), Spektrum Patholinguistik—Panorama Patholinguistik: Sprachwissenschaft trifft Sprachtherapie (Vol. 10, pp. 103–114). Universitätsverlag Potsdam. https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/frontdoor/index/index/docId/39701
35.
LampeL. F.HameauS.BürkiA.FiederN.SowmanP. F.NickelsL. (2019). Investigating effects of semantic variables on word production. Preregistration on the Open Science Framework. osf.io/yw6ma
LampeL. F.HameauS.NickelsL. (2022). Semantic variables both help and hinder word production: Behavioral evidence from picture naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 48(1), 72–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001050
LeveltW. J. M.RoelofsA.MeyerA. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99001776
40.
Lloyd-JonesT. J.NettlemillM. (2007). Sources of error in picture naming under time pressure. Memory & Cognition, 35(4), 816–836. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193317
McRaeK.CreeG. S.SeidenbergM. S.McNorganC. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37(4), 547–559. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192726
43.
MillardS. P. (2013). EnvStats: An R package for environmental statistics. Springer.
44.
MiozzoM.PulvermüllerF.HaukO. (2015). Early parallel activation of semantics and phonology in picture naming: Evidence from a multiple linear regression MEG study. Cerebral Cortex, 25(10), 3343–3355. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu137
45.
MirmanD. (2011). Effects of near and distant semantic neighbors on word production. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 11(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-010-0009-7
46.
MirmanD.GrazianoK. M. (2013). The neural basis of inhibitory effects of semantic and phonological neighbors in spoken word production. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(9), 1504–1516. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00408
47.
MirmanD.KittredgeA. K.DellG. S. (2010). Effects of near and distant phonological neighbors on picture naming. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 32, 1447–1452.
48.
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(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.65
49.
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(6), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2011.574112
50.
MorrisonC. M.EllisA. W.QuinlanP. T. (1992). Age of acquisition, not word frequency, affects object naming, not object recognition. Memory & Cognition, 20(6), 705–714. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202720
51.
MortonJ. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review, 76(2), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027366
52.
MortonJ. (1970). A functional model for memory. In NormanD. A. (Ed.), Models of human memory (pp. 203–253). Academic Press.
53.
MosesM. S.NickelsL.SheardC. (2004). “I’m sitting here feeling aphasic!” A study of recurrent perseverative errors elicited in unimpaired speakers. Brain and Language, 89(1), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00364-X
54.
PerretC.BoninP. (2019). Which variables should be controlled for to investigate picture naming in adults? A Bayesian meta-analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 51(6), 2533–2545. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1100-1
55.
PexmanP. M.HargreavesI. S.EdwardsJ. D.HenryL. C.GoodyearB. G. (2007). The neural consequences of semantic richness: When more comes to mind, less activation is observed. Psychological Science, 18(5), 401–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01913.x
56.
PlautD. C.ShalliceT. (1993). Deep dyslexia: A case study of connectionist neuropsychology. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 10(5), 377–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643299308253469
57.
RabovskyM.McRaeK. (2014). Simulating the N400 ERP component as semantic network error: Insights from a feature-based connectionist attractor model of word meaning. Cognition, 132(1), 68–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.010
58.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.016
59.
RabovskyM.SchadD. J.Abdel RahmanR. (2021). Semantic richness and density effects on language production: Electrophysiological and behavioral evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 47(3), 508–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000940
60.
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (4.1.2). https://www.r-project.org/
61.
RogersT. T.Lambon RalphM. A.GarrardP.BozeatS.McClellandJ. L.HodgesJ. R.PattersonK. (2004). Structure and deterioration of semantic memory: A neuropsychological and computational investigation. Psychological Review, 111(1), 205–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.205
62.
RogersT. T.PattersonK.JefferiesE.Lambon RalphM. A. (2015). Disorders of representation and control in semantic cognition: Effects of familiarity, typicality, and specificity. Neuropsychologia, 76, 220–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.04.015
63.
RoschE. H.MervisC. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9
64.
RStudio Team. (2021). RStudio: Integrated development for R (2021.09.1+372). https://www.rstudio.com/
65.
StarreveldP. A.La HeijW. (1999). Word substitution errors in a speeded picture-word task. The American Journal of Psychology, 112(4), 521–553. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/1423649
66.
TaylorK. I.DevereuxB. J.AcresK.RandallB.TylerL. K. (2012). Contrasting effects of feature-based statistics on the categorisation and basic-level identification of visual objects. Cognition, 122(3), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.11.001
67.
van HeuvenW. J. B.ManderaP.KeuleersE.BrysbaertM. (2014). SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(6), 1176–1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.850521
68.
VitkovitchM.HumphreysG. W. (1991). Perseverant responding in speeded naming of pictures: It’s in the links. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(4), 664–680. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.17.4.664
69.
VitkovitchM.HumphreysG. W.Lloyd-JonesT. J. (1993). On naming a giraffe a zebra: Picture naming errors across different object categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(2), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.2.243
70.
WoollamsA. M. (2012). Apples are not the only fruit: The effects of concept typicality on semantic representation in the anterior temporal lobe. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, Article 85. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00085
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.
