scholarly journals Behavioral interference or facilitation does not distinguish between competitive and noncompetitive accounts of lexical selection in word production.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary M. Oppenheim ◽  
Nazbanou Nozari
Keyword(s):  
Picture Naming ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Word Production ◽  
Threshold Models ◽  
Semantic Features ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Semantic Interference ◽  
Relative Threshold ◽  
Selection Algorithms ◽  
Naming Latencies

One of the major debates in the field of word production is whether lexical selection is competitive or not. For nearly half a century, semantic interference effects in picture naming latencies have been claimed as evidence for competitive (relative threshold) models of lexical selection, while semantic facilitation effects have been claimed as evidence for non-competitive (simple threshold) models instead. In this paper, we use a computational modeling approach to compare the consequences of competitive and noncompetitive selection algorithms for blocked cyclic picture naming latencies, combined with two approaches to representing taxonomic and thematic semantic features. We show that although our simple model can capture both semantic interference and facilitation, the presence or absence of competition in the selection mechanism is unrelated to the polarity of these semantic effects. These results question the validity of prior assumptions and offer new perspectives on the origins of interference and facilitation in language production.

scholarly journals Joint language production: an electrophysiological investigation of simulated lexical access on behalf of task partner

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna K. Kuhlen ◽  
Rasha Abdel Rahman
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Access ◽  
Joint Action ◽  
Picture Naming ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Naming Latency ◽  
Semantic Category ◽  
Electrophysiological Investigation ◽  
Semantic Interference ◽  
Naming Response ◽  
Naming Latencies

AbstractThis study investigates in a joint action setting a well-established effect in speech production, cumulative semantic interference, an increase in naming latencies when naming a series of semantically related pictures. In a joint action setting, two task partners take turns naming pictures. Previous work in this setting demonstrated that naming latencies increase not only with each semantically related picture speakers named themselves, but also with each picture named by the partner (Hoedemaker, Ernst, Meyer, & Belke, 2017; Kuhlen & Abdel Rahman, 2017). This suggests that speakers pursue lexical access on behalf of their partner. In two electrophysiological experiments (N=30 each) we investigated the neuro-cognitive signatures of such simulated lexical access. As expected, in both experiments speakers’ naming latency increased with successive naming instances within a given semantic category. Correspondingly, speakers’ EEG showed an increasing posterior positivity between 250-400ms, an ERP modulation typically associated with lexical access. However, unlike previous experiments, speakers were not influenced by their partner’s picture naming. Accordingly, we found no electrophysiological evidence of lexical access on behalf of the partner. We conclude that speakers do not always represent their partner’s naming response and discuss possible factors that may have limited the participants’ evaluation of the task as a joint action.

Is lexical selection in bilingual speech production language-specific? Further evidence from Spanish–English and English–Spanish bilinguals

1999 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert Costa ◽  
Alfonso Caramazza
Keyword(s):  
Speech Production ◽  
Lexical Access ◽  
Picture Naming ◽  
Facilitatory Effect ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Bilingual Speakers ◽  
L2 Spanish ◽  
Naming Latencies ◽  
Spanish Bilinguals

In this study we address the question of how lexical selection is achieved by bilingual speakers during speech production. Specifically, we test whether there is competition between the two lexicons of a bilingual during lexical access. In two picture–word interference experiments we explore the performance of two groups of bilinguals, English–Spanish and Spanish–English proficient bilinguals while naming pictures either in their L1 (Spanish) or in their L2 (Spanish). Picture naming was facilitated when the name of the picture and the distracter word were the “same”, regardless of the language in which the distracter was printed: same-language (e.g., mesa–mesa [table in Spanish]) or different-language pairs (e.g., mesa–table). The magnitude of this facilitatory effect was similar when naming in L1 (Experiment 1) and in L2 (Experiment 2). We also found that naming latencies were slower when the distracter word was semantically related to the picture's name (e.g., mesa–chair), regardless of the language in which the distracter was printed. The results suggest that there is no competition between the two lexicons of a bilingual during lexical access for production. This interpretation favors a model of lexical access in which lexical selection is language-specific both when speaking in L1 and in L2.

scholarly journals Comparing the cognate effect in spoken and written second language word production

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Merel Muylle ◽  
Eva Van Assche ◽  
Robert Hartsuiker
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Picture Naming ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Naming Task ◽  
Written Language ◽  
Word Production ◽  
Error Pattern ◽  
Underlying Processes

Cognates – words that share form and meaning between languages – are processed faster than control words. However, it is unclear whether this effect is merely lexical (i.e., central) in nature, or whether it cascades to phonological/orthographic (i.e., peripheral) processes. This study compared the cognate effect in spoken and typewritten production, which share central, but not peripheral processes. We inquired whether this effect is present in typewriting, and if so, whether its magnitude is similar to spoken production. Dutch-English bilinguals performed either a spoken or written picture naming task in English; picture names were either Dutch-English cognates or control words. Cognates were named faster than controls and there was no cognate-by-modality interaction. Additionally, there was a similar error pattern in both modalities. These results suggest that common underlying processes are responsible for the cognate effect in spoken and written language production, and thus a central locus of the cognate effect.

Word form retrieval in language production

2007 ◽  
pp. 470-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antje S. Meyer ◽  
Eva Belke
Keyword(s):  
Language Production ◽  
Knowledge Building ◽  
Word Production ◽  
Word Form ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Single Word ◽  
Phonological Representations ◽  
Phonological Knowledge ◽  
Phonetic Code ◽  
Selection Of

Current models of word form retrieval converge on central assumptions. They all distinguish between morphological, phonological, and phonetic representations and processes; they all assume morphological and phonological decomposition, and agree on the main processing units at these levels. In addition, all current models of word form postulate the same basic retrieval mechanisms: activation and selection of units. Models of word production often distinguish between processes concerning the selection of a single word unit from the mental lexicon and the retrieval of the associated word form. This article explores lexical selection and word form retrieval in language production. Following the distinctions in linguistic theory, it discusses morphological encoding, phonological encoding, and phonetic encoding. The article also considers the representation of phonological knowledge, building of phonological representations, segmental retrieval, retrieval of metrical information, generating the phonetic code of words, and a model of word form retrieval.

Brain-imaging studies of language production

2007 ◽  
pp. 546-564
Author(s):  
Peter Indefrey
Keyword(s):  
Brain Imaging ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Brain Regions ◽  
Code Word ◽  
Word Production ◽  
Production Model ◽  
Exact Nature ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Imaging Studies ◽  
Independent Evidence

This article adopts the production model of Levelt to discuss brain imaging studies of continuous speech. Conclusions about the involvement of brain regions in processes of language production are mainly drawn on the basis of the presence or absence of processing components of speaking in certain experimental tasks. Such conclusions are largely theory independent, because differences between current models do not concern the assumed processing levels but the exact nature of the information flow between them. In a second step, the article tests some of these conclusions by comparing the few available data on activation time courses of brain regions and independent evidence on the timing of processes in language production. It also discusses brain regions involved in word production, conceptually driven lexical selection, phonological code (word form) retrieval, phonological encoding, phonetic encoding and articulation, self-monitoring, whether the hemodynamic core areas are necessary for word production, and bilingual language production.

scholarly journals ERP Correlates of Word Production before and after Stroke in an Aphasic Patient

2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 374-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Laganaro ◽  
Stéphanie Morand ◽  
Christoph M. Michel ◽  
Laurent Spinelli ◽  
Armin Schnider
Keyword(s):  
Picture Naming ◽  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Time Window ◽  
Brain Activity ◽  
Temporal Cortex ◽  
Word Production ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Healthy Controls ◽  
Aphasic Patient

Changes in brain activity characterizing impaired speech production after brain damage have usually been investigated by comparing aphasic speakers with healthy subjects because prestroke data are normally not available. However, when interpreting the results of studies of stroke patients versus healthy controls, there is an inherent difficulty in disentangling the contribution of neuropathology from other sources of between-subject variability. In the present work, we had an unusual opportunity to study an aphasic patient with severe anomia who had incidentally performed a picture naming task in an ERP study as a control subject one year before suffering a left hemisphere stroke. The fortuitous recording of this patient's brain activity before his stroke allows direct comparison of his pre- and poststroke brain activity in the same language production task. The subject did not differ from other healthy subjects before his stroke, but presented major electrophysiological differences after stroke, both in comparison to himself before stroke and to the control group. ERP changes consistently appeared after stroke in a specific time window starting about 250 msec after picture onset, characterized by a single divergent but stable topographic configuration of the scalp electric field associated with a cortical generator abnormally limited to left temporal posterior perilesional areas. The patient's pattern of anomia revealed a severe lexical–phonological impairment and his ERP responses diverged from those of healthy controls in the time window that has previously been associated with lexical–phonological processes during picture naming. Given that his prestroke ERPs were indistinguishable from those of healthy controls, it seems highly likely that the change in his poststroke ERPs is due to changes in language production processes as a consequence of stroke. The patient's neurolinguistic deficits, combined with the ERPs results, provide unique evidence for the role of left temporal cortex in lexical–phonological processing from about 250 to 450 msec during word production.

scholarly journals Semantic interference is not modality specific: Evidence from sound naming with distractor pictures

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Wöhner ◽  
Jörg D. Jescheniak ◽  
Andreas Mädebach
Keyword(s):  
Dual Task ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Word Production ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Semantic Interference ◽  
Task Interference ◽  
Central Processing ◽  
Selection Mechanisms ◽  
Dual Task Interference ◽  
Naming Tasks

In three experiments participants named environmental sounds (e.g., the bleating of a sheep by producing the word “sheep”) in the presence of distractor pictures. In Experiment 1 we observed faster responses in sound naming with congruent pictures (e.g., sheep; congruency facilitation) and slower responses with semantically related pictures (e.g., donkey; semantic interference), each compared to unrelated pictures (e.g., violin). In Experiments 2 and 3, we replicated these effects and used a psychological refractory period approach (combining an arrow decision or letter rotation task as task 1 with sound naming as task 2) to investigate the locus of the effects. Congruency facilitation was underadditive with dual -task interference suggesting that it arises, in part, during pre-central processing stages in sound naming (i.e., sound identification). In contrast, semantic interference was additive with dual -task interference suggesting that it arises during central (or post-central) processing stages in sound naming (i.e., response selection or later processes). These results demonstrate the feasibility of sound naming tasks for chronometric investigations of word production. Furthermore, they highlight that semantic interference is not restricted to the use of target pictures and distractor words but can be observed with quite different target-distractor configurations. The experiments support the view that congruency facilitation and semantic interference reflect some general cognitive mechanism involved in word production. These results are discussed in the context of the debate about semantic-lexical selection mechanisms in word production.

scholarly journals Effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation over the left posterior superior temporal gyrus on picture-word interference

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. e0242941
Author(s):  
Vitória Piai ◽  
Laura Nieberlein ◽  
Gesa Hartwigsen
Keyword(s):  
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Temporal Cortex ◽  
Superior Temporal Gyrus ◽  
Word Production ◽  
Brain State ◽  
Semantic Interference ◽  
Interference Task

Word-production theories argue that during language production, a concept activates multiple lexical candidates in left temporal cortex, and the intended word is selected from this set. Evidence for theories on spoken-word production comes, for example, from the picture-word interference task, where participants name pictures superimposed by congruent (e.g., picture: rabbit, distractor “rabbit”), categorically related (e.g., distractor “sheep”), or unrelated (e.g., distractor “fork”) words. Typically, whereas congruent distractors facilitate naming, related distractors slow down picture naming relative to unrelated distractors, resulting in semantic interference. However, the neural correlates of semantic interference are debated. Previous neuroimaging studies have shown that the left mid-to-posterior STG (pSTG) is involved in the interference associated with semantically related distractors. To probe the functional relevance of this area, we targeted the left pSTG with focal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) while subjects performed a picture-word interference task. Unexpectedly, pSTG stimulation did not affect the semantic interference effect but selectively increased the congruency effect (i.e., faster naming with congruent distractors). The facilitatory TMS effect selectively occurred in the more difficult list with an overall lower name agreement. Our study adds new evidence to the causal role of the left pSTG in the interaction between picture and distractor representations or processing streams, only partly supporting previous neuroimaging studies. Moreover, the observed unexpected condition-specific facilitatory rTMS effect argues for an interaction of the task- or stimulus-induced brain state with the modulatory TMS effect. These issues should be systematically addressed in future rTMS studies on language production.

No lexical competition without priming: Evidence from the picture–word interference paradigm

2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (12) ◽  
pp. 2562-2570 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanna S Gauvin ◽  
Magdalena K Jonen ◽  
Jessica Choi ◽  
Katie McMahon ◽  
Greig I de Zubicaray
Keyword(s):  
Interference Effect ◽  
Picture Naming ◽  
Interference Effects ◽  
Lexical Competition ◽  
Semantic Interference ◽  
The Past ◽  
Task Parameters ◽  
Naming Latencies ◽  
And Task

Over the past 40 years, researchers have assumed that semantic interference effects in picture naming reflect competition among lexical candidates during retrieval. In this study, we examined the role of the familiarisation phase in which participants are shown the target pictures and required to rehearse the appropriate names before the picture–word interference (PWI) paradigm is performed. A previous study reported that omitting the familiarisation phase reversed the polarity of the semantic effect to facilitation. In two experiments using between- and within-participants design, respectively, we compared PWI performance with and without familiarisation while using matched stimuli and task parameters. Overall, the results showed the typical semantic interference effect following familiarisation. However, in both experiments, naming latencies did not differ significantly between related and unrelated distractors when familiarisation was omitted. The current findings suggest that familiarisation plays an important role in determining semantic interference in PWI, most likely via raising lexical competitor activation by priming links between targets and related concepts. We also discuss broader implications of our findings with respect to the replicability of reported semantic facilitation effects in PWI.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document