In the picture–word interference paradigm, participants name pictures while ignoring a written or spoken distractor word. Naming times to the pictures are slowed down by the presence of the distractor word. The present study investigates in detail the impact of distractor and target word properties on picture naming times, building on the seminal study by Miozzo and Caramazza. We report the results of several Bayesian meta-analyses based on 26 datasets. These analyses provide estimates of effect sizes and their precision for several variables and their interactions. They show the reliability of the distractor frequency effect on picture naming latencies (latencies decrease as the frequency of the distractor increases) and demonstrate for the first time the impact of distractor length, with longer naming latencies for trials with longer distractors. Moreover, distractor frequency interacts with target word frequency to predict picture naming latencies. The methodological and theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.
Abdel RahmanR.AristeiS. (2010). Now you see it . . . and now again: Semantic interference reflects lexical competition in speech production with and without articulation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(5), 657–661. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.657
2.
AghababianV.NazirT. A. (2000). Developing normal reading skills: Aspects of the visual processes underlying word recognition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 76(2), 123–150. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1999.2540
3.
AlarioF.-X.De CaraB.ZieglerJ. C. (2007). Automatic activation of phonology in silent reading is parallel: Evidence from beginning and skilled readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 97(3), 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2007.02.001
4.
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
5.
BalotaD. A.YapM. J.CorteseM. J.HutchisonK. A.KesslerB.LoftisB.NeelyJ. H.NelsonD. L.SimpsonG. B.TreimanR. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193014
6.
BarryC.MorrisonC. M.EllisA. W. (1997). Naming the Snodgrass and Vanderwart Pictures: Effects of age of acquisition, frequency, and name agreement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A, 50(3), 560–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/783663595
7.
BartonJ. J. S.HanifH. M.BjörnströmL. E.HillsC. (2014). The word-length effect in reading: A review. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 31(5–6), 378–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2014.895314
8.
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
9.
BennettC. H. (1976). Efficient estimation of free energy differences from Monte Carlo data. Journal of Computational Physics, 22(2), 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(76)90078-4
10.
BesnerD.RiskoE. F. (2016). Thinking outside the box when reading aloud: Between (localist) module connection strength as a source of word frequency effects. Psychological Review, 123(5), 592–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000041
11.
BiY.XuY.CaramazzaA. (2009). Orthographic and phonological effects in the picture–word interference paradigm: Evidence from a logographic language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30(4), 637–658. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716409990051
12.
BoninP.ChalardM.MéotA.FayolM. (2002). The determinants of spoken and written picture naming latencies. British Journal of Psychology, 93(1), 89–114. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712602162463
BrysbaertM.BuchmeierM.ConradM.JacobsA. M.BölteJ.BöhlA. (2011). The word frequency effect: A review of recent developments and implications for the choice of frequency estimates in German. Experimental Psychology, 58(5), 412–424. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000123
15.
BrysbaertM.KeuleersE.NewB. (2011). Assessing the usefulness of Google books’ word frequencies for psycholinguistic research on word processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Article 27. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00027
16.
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(4), 977–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
17.
BrysbaertM.StevensM.ManderaP.KeuleersE. (2016). The impact of word prevalence on lexical decision times: Evidence from the Dutch Lexicon Project 2. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(3), 441–458. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000159
18.
BürkiA. (2017). Differences in processing times for distractors and pictures modulate the influence of distractors in picture–word interference tasks. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(6), 709–723. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1267783
19.
BürkiA.BesanaT.DegiorgiG.GilbertR.AlarioF.-X. (2019). Representation and selection of determiners with phonological variants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(7), 1287–1315. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000643
20.
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, Article 104125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104125
21.
BürkiA.MadecS. (2022). Picture-word interference in language production studies: Exploring the roles of attention and processing times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 48(7), 1019–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001098
22.
BürknerP. (2018). Advanced Bayesian multilevel modeling with the R package brms. The R Journal, 10(1), 395–411. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018-017
23.
BurtJ. S. (1994). Identity primes produce facilitation in a colour naming task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A, 47(4), 957–1000. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749408401103
24.
BurtJ. S. (2002). Why do non-color words interfere with color naming?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(5), 1019–1038. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.28.5.1019
25.
CaramazzaA.CostaA. (2000). The semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm: Does the response set matter?Cognition, 75(2), B51–B64.
26.
CaramazzaA.CostaA. (2001). Set size and repetitions are not at the base of the differential effects of semantically related distractors: Implications for models of lexical access. Cognition, 80, 291–298.
CuetosF.EllisA. W.AlvarezB. (1999). Naming times for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(4), 650–658. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200741
30.
CuetosF.Glez-NostiM.BarbónA.BrysbaertM. (2011). SUBTLEX-ESP: Spanish word frequencies based on film subtitles. Psicológica, 32(2), 133–143.
31.
CutlerA. (1981). Making up materials is a confounded nuisance, or: Will we able to run any psycholinguistic experiments at all in 1990?Cognition, 10(1), 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(81)90026-3
32.
DamianM. F.BowersJ. S. (2003). Locus of semantic interference in picture-word interference tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(1), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196474
33.
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
34.
de ZubicarayG. I.McMahonK. L.EastburnM. M.WilsonS. J. (2002). Orthographic/phonological facilitation of naming responses in the picture-word task: An event-related fMRI study using overt vocal responding. NeuroImage, 16(4), 1084–1093.
35.
de ZubicarayG. I.MiozzoM.JohnsonK.SchillerN. O.McMahonK. L. (2012). Independent distractor frequency and age-of-acquisition effects in picture-word interference: FMRI evidence for post-lexical and lexical accounts according to distractor type. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(2), 482–495. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00141
36.
DhoogeE.De BaeneW.HartsuikerR. J. (2013). A late locus of the distractor frequency effect in picture–word interference: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 124(3), 232–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.12.005
37.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019128
38.
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 & Review, 18(1), 116–122. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-010-0026-0
39.
EllisA. W.MorrisonC. M. (1998). Real age-of-acquisition effects in lexical retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(2), 515–523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.2.515
40.
FerrandL.MéotA.SpinelliE.NewB.PallierC.BoninP.DufauS.MathôtS.GraingerJ. (2018). MEGALEX: A megastudy of visual and auditory word recognition. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1285–1307. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0943-1
41.
FinkbeinerM.CaramazzaA. (2006). Now you see it, now you don’t: On turning semantic interference into facilitation in a Stroop-like task. Cortex, 42(6), 790–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70419-2
42.
FoucartA.BraniganH. P.BardE. G. (2010). Determiner selection in Romance languages: Evidence from French. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(6), 1414–1421. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020432
43.
FrederiksenJ. R.KrollJ. F. (1976). Spelling and sound: Approaches to the internal lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2(3), 361–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.2.3.361
44.
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, 2562–2570. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021817747266
45.
GelmanA.CarlinJ. (2014). Beyond power calculations: Assessing Type S (Sign) and Type M (Magnitude) errors. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 641–651. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614551642
46.
GelmanA.CarlinJ.SternH.DunsonD.VehtariA.RubinD. (2013). Bayesian data analysis (3rd ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC.
47.
GengJ.SchnurT. T.JanssenN. (2014). Relative speed of processing affects interference in Stroop and picture–word interference paradigms: Evidence from the distractor frequency effect. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(9), 1100–1114. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.846473
48.
GoslinJ.GalluzziC.RomaniC. (2014). PhonItalia: A phonological lexicon for Italian. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 872–886. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0400-8
49.
GronauQ. F.SarafoglouA.MatzkeD.LyA.BoehmU.MarsmanM.. . .SteingroeverH. (2017). A tutorial on bridge sampling. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 81, 80–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2017.09.005
50.
HairJ. F.Jr.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
51.
HeuvenW. J. B.van 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
52.
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, Article 872. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00872
53.
JeffreysH. (1961). Theory of probability. Oxford University Press.
54.
JescheniakJ. D.LeveltW. J. M. (1994). Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 824–843. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.824
KeuleersE.BrysbaertM.NewB. (2010). SUBTLEX-NL: A new measure for Dutch word frequency based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 643–650. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.643
57.
LeeM. D.WagenmakersE.-J. (2014). Bayesian cognitive modeling: A practical course. Cambridge University Press.
58.
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.
59.
LupkerS. J. (1979). The semantic nature of response competition in the picture-word interference task. Memory & Cognition, 7(6), 485–495. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198265
60.
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
61.
MeschyanG.HernandezA. (2002). Age of acquisition and word frequency: Determinants of object-naming speed and accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 30(2), 262–269. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195287
62.
MeyerA. S. (1996). Lexical access in phrase and sentence production: Results from Picture–Word Interference experiments. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(4), 477–496. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0026
63.
Michel LangeV.LaganaroM. (2014). Inter-subject variability modulates phonological advance planning in the production of adjective-noun phrases. Frontiers in Language Sciences, 5, Article 43. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00043
64.
MiozzoM.CaramazzaA. (2003). When more is less: A counterintuitive effect of distractor frequency in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(2), 228–252.
65.
MousikouP.RastleK. (2015). Lexical frequency effects on articulation: A comparison of picture naming and reading aloud. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1571. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01571
66.
NewB.BrysbaertM.VeronisJ.PallierC. (2007). The use of film subtitles to estimate word frequencies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(4), 661–677. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271640707035X
67.
NewB.PallierC.BrysbaertM.FerrandL. (2004). Lexique 2: A new French lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 516–524. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195598
68.
OldfieldR. C.WingfieldA. (1965). Response latencies in naming objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17(4), 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470216508416445
69.
PiaiV.RoelofsA.SchriefersH. (2011). Semantic interference in immediate and delayed naming and reading: Attention and task decisions. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(4), 404–423.
70.
PiaiV.RoelofsA.SchriefersH. (2012). Distractor strength and selective attention in picture-naming performance. Memory & Cognition, 40(4), 614–627. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0171-3
71.
PiantadosiS. T. (2014). Zipf’s word frequency law in natural language: A critical review and future directions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(5), 1112–1130. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0585-6
72.
PosnanskyC. J.RaynerK. (1977). Visual-feature and response components in a picture-word interference task with beginning and skilled readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 24(3), 440–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(77)90090-X
73.
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
74.
RaynerK.PosnanskyC. (1978). Stages of processing in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 107(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.107.1.64
75.
RièsS. K.FraserD.McMahonK. L.de ZubicarayG. I. (2015). Early and late electrophysiological effects of distractor frequency in picture naming: Reconciling input and output accounts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(10), 1936–1947. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00831
76.
RizioA. A.MoyerK. J.DiazM. T. (2017). Neural evidence for phonologically based language production deficits in older adults: An fMRI investigation of age-related differences in picture-word interference. Brain and Behavior, 7(4), Article e00660. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.660
RoelofsA. (2003). Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: Modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. Psychological Review, 110(1), 88–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.110.1.88
80.
RoelofsA. (2005). From Popper to Lakatos: A case for cumulative computational modeling. In CutlerA. (Ed.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones (pp. 313–330). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
81.
RoelofsA. (2018). A unified computational account of cumulative semantic, semantic blocking, and semantic distractor effects in picture naming. Cognition, 172, 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.12.007
82.
RoelofsA.PiaiV.SchriefersH. (2011). Selective attention and distractor frequency in naming performance: Comment on Dhooge and Hartsuiker (2010). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(4), 1032–1038. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023328
83.
SassenhagenJ.AldayP. M. (2016). A common misapplication of statistical inference: Nuisance control with null-hypothesis significance tests. Brain and Language, 162, 42–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2016.08.001
84.
SchadD. J.NicenboimB.BürknerP.-C.BetancourtM.VasishthS. (2022). Workflow techniques for the robust use of Bayes factors. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000472
85.
SchiepersC. (1980). Response latency and accuracy in visual word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 27, 71–81. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199908
86.
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
87.
ShaoZ.RoelofsA.MartinR. C.MeyerA. S. (2015). Selective inhibition and naming performance in semantic blocking, picture-word interference, and color–word Stroop tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(6), 1806–1820. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039363
88.
StarreveldP. A.HeijW. L.VerdonschotR. (2013). Time course analysis of the effects of distractor frequency and categorical relatedness in picture naming: An evaluation of the response exclusion account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(5), 633–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.608026
89.
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
90.
SuttonA. J.AbramsK. R. (2001). Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 10(4), 277–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/096228020101000404
ViethH. E.McMahonK. L.de ZubicarayG. I. (2014). The roles of shared vs. distinctive conceptual features in lexical access. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1014. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01014
93.
WhiteK. K.AbramsL.LaBatL. R.RhynesA. M. (2016). Competing influences of emotion and phonology during picture-word interference. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(2), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1101144
94.
YarkoniT.BalotaD.YapM. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 971–979. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.5.971
95.
ZipfG. K. (1935). The psycho-biology of language (Reprinted 1965). MIT Press.
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.
