Semantic context effects are well established using both words and pictures as stimuli. One such effect, semantic interference, is observed in naming latencies when a categorically related distractor word or picture is presented together with a target picture (e.g., dog-LION). Recently, this effect has also been shown to occur when an environmental sound (e.g., a dog barking) is presented as an auditory distractor during picture naming and when a distractor picture is presented with a target sound for naming. The purpose of the current study was twofold: (1) to replicate the semantic interference effect in the picture–sound interference (PSI) paradigm and (2) determine whether a semantic interference effect is also observable when distractor words are presented with environmental sounds as target auditory objects for naming, using a novel sound–word interference (SWI) paradigm. We replicated the semantic interference effect in Experiment 1 with environmental sound distractors. Experiment 2 demonstrated significant semantic interference during an SWI paradigm for the first time. We discuss the implications of these results for our understanding of the origin and locus of the semantic interference effect according to current theories of lexical selection.
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. (2019). Semantic processing during language production: An update of the swinging lexical network. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34, 1176–1192.
3.
BaayenR. H.DavidsonD. J.BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed effects modelling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.
4.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
7.
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, 104–125.
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.
ChenY. C.SpenceC. (2010). When hearing the bark helps to identify the dog: Semantically congruent sounds modulate the identification of masked pictures. Cognition, 114(3), 389–404.
10.
ChenY. C.SpenceC. (2011). Crossmodal semantic priming by naturalistic sounds and spoken words enhances visual sensitivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1554–1568.
11.
ChenY. C.SpenceC. (2013). The time-course of the cross-modal semantic modulation of visual picture processing by naturalistic sounds and spoken words. Multisensory Research, 26, 371–386.
12.
ChenY. C.SpenceC. (2018). Audio-visual semantic interactions between linguistic and non-linguistic stimuli: The time-courses and categorical specificity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(10), 1488–1507.
DamianM. F.MartinR. C. (1999). Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 345–361.
15.
DellG.SullivanJ. (2004). Speech errors and language production: Neuropsychological and connectionist perspectives. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 44, 63–108.
16.
de ZubicarayG.McLeanM.OppermannF.HegartyA.McMahonK.JescheniakJ. (2018). The shape of things to come in speech production: Visual form interference during lexical access. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 1921–1938.
17.
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.
18.
FerreiraV. S.PashlerH. (2002). Central bottleneck influences on the processing stages of word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(6), 1187–1199.
19.
GauvinH.JonenM. K.ChoiJ.McMahonK.de ZubicarayG. (2018). No lexical competition without priming: Evidence from the picture-word interference paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 2562–2570.
20.
GauvinH.McMahonK.de ZubicarayG. (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, 39, 1–12.
21.
GlaserW. R. (1992). Picture naming. Cognition, 42, 61–105.
22.
GlaserW. R.DüngelhoffF. J. (1984). The time course of picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 640–654.
23.
GlaserW. R.GlaserM. O. (1989). Context effects in Stroop-like word and picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 118(1), 13–42.
24.
HumphreysG. W.RiddochM. J.QuinlanP. T. (1988). Cascade processes in picture identification. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5(1), 67–104.
25.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP.ChristensenR. (2017). LmerTest Package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.
26.
LeveltW. J. M.RoelofsA.MeyerA. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.
27.
LupkerS. J. (1979). The semantic nature of response competition in the picture-word interference task. Memory & Cognition, 7, 485–495.
28.
MädebachA.KieselerM. L.JescheniakJ. (2018). Localizing semantic interference from distractor sounds in picture naming: A dual-task study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(5), 1909–1916.
29.
MädebachA.WöhnerS.KieselerM. L.JescheniakJ. D. (2017). Neighing, barking, and drumming horses-object related sounds help and hinder picture naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(9), 1629–1646.
30.
MahonB. Z.CostaA.PetersonR.VargasK. A.AlfonsoC. (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.
31.
MatuschekH.KlieglR.VasishthS.BaayenH.BatesD. (2017). Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315.
32.
PiaiV.RoelofsA.SchriefersH. (2015). Task choice and semantic interference in picture naming. Acta Psychologica, 157(1), 13–22.
33.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria.
34.
R Core Team (2018). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
35.
RoelofsA. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42, 107–142.
36.
RoelofsA.FerreiraV. S. (2019). The architecture of speaking. In HagoortP. (Ed.), Human language: From genes and brains to behavior (pp. 35–50). MIT Press.
37.
RouxF.ArmstrongB. C.CarreirasM. (2017). Chronset: An automated tool for detecting speech onset. Behavior Research Methods, 49(5), 1864–1881.
38.
SchriefersH.MeyerA. S.LeveltW. J. (1990). Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(1), 86–102.
39.
ScottS. K. (2005). Auditory processing-speech, space and auditory objects. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15(2), 197–201.
40.
SpalekK.DamianM.BölteJ. (2013). Is lexical selection in spoken word production competitive? Introduction to the special issue on lexical competition in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(5), 597–614.
41.
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.
42.
van CasterenM.DavisM. H. (2006). Mix, a program for pseudorandomization. Behavior Research Methods, 38(4), 584–589.
43.
WöhnerS.JescheniakJ.MädebachA. (2020). Semantic interference is not modality specific: Evidence from sound naming with distractor pictures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(12), 2290–2308.
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.
