An investigation of the role of working memory capacity and naming speed in phonological advance planning in language
                    production

Abstract Producing multi-word utterances is a complex, yet relatively effortless process. Research with the picture-word interference paradigm has shown that speakers can plan all elements of such utterances up to the phonological level before initiating speech, yet magnitude and direction of this phonological priming effect (i.e. facilitative vs. inhibitory) differ between but also within studies. We investigated possible sources for variability in the phonological advance planning scope. In two experiments, participants produced bare nouns (“monkey”) and complex noun phrases (“the small red monkey”) while ignoring distractor words phonologically (un)related to the noun. For low- and high-working memory capacity speakers as well as fast and slow speakers, we found phonological facilitation effects for the bare noun, but no distractor effects for the complex noun phrases. However, looking at individual distractor effects for utterance-final elements revealed a large variability between speakers. We conclude that phonological advance planning cannot be summarised as an overall effect, but should take into account inter- and intraindividual variability.

Download Full-text

An Investigation of the Role of Working Memory Capacity and Naming Speed in Phonological Advance Planning in Language Production

10.31234/osf.io/2qg43 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Jana Klaus ◽

Herbert Schriefers

Keyword(s):

Working Memory ◽

Language Production ◽

Working Memory Capacity ◽

Noun Phrases ◽

Memory Capacity ◽

Naming Speed ◽

Large Variability ◽

Bare Nouns ◽

Advance Planning

Producing multi-word utterances is a complex, yet relatively effortless process. Research with the picture-word interference paradigm has shown that speakers can plan all elements of such utterances up to the phonological level before initiating speech, yet magnitude and polarity differ between but also within studies. We investigated possible sources for variability in the phonological advance planning scope. In two experiments, participants produced bare nouns (“monkey”) and complex noun phrases (“the small red monkey”) while ignoring distractor words phonologically (un)related to the noun. For low- and high-working memory capacity speakers as well as fast and slow speakers, we found phonological facilitation effects for the bare noun, but no distractor effects for the complex noun phrases. However, looking at individual distractor effects for utterance-final elements revealed a large variability between speakers. We conclude that phonological advance planning cannot be summarised as an overall effect, but should take into account inter- and intraindividual variability.

Download Full-text

Working Memory Capacity and a Notorious Brain Teaser

Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) ◽

10.1027/1618-3169.53.1.123 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 53 (2) ◽

pp. 123-131 ◽

Cited By ~ 29

Author(s):

Wim De Neys ◽

Niki Verschueren

Keyword(s):

Working Memory ◽

Secondary Task ◽

Working Memory Capacity ◽

Memory Capacity ◽

Task Load ◽

Normative Reasoning ◽

Monty Hall Dilemma ◽

Monty Hall ◽

Memory Resources

Abstract. The Monty Hall Dilemma (MHD) is an intriguing example of the discrepancy between people’s intuitions and normative reasoning. This study examines whether the notorious difficulty of the MHD is associated with limitations in working memory resources. Experiment 1 and 2 examined the link between MHD reasoning and working memory capacity. Experiment 3 tested the role of working memory experimentally by burdening the executive resources with a secondary task. Results showed that participants who solved the MHD correctly had a significantly higher working memory capacity than erroneous responders. Correct responding also decreased under secondary task load. Findings indicate that working memory capacity plays a key role in overcoming salient intuitions and selecting the correct switching response during MHD reasoning.

Download Full-text