Response competition better explains Stroop interference than does response exclusion

Researchers debate whether Stroop interference from an incongruent word in color-naming response time is caused by response competition or by response exclusion. According to the former account, the interference reflects competition in lexical response selection during color name planning, whereas according to the latter, the interference reflects the removal of a motor program for the incongruent word from an articulatory buffer after planning. Here, numerical predictions about the magnitude of Stroop interference as a function of stimulus onset asynchrony were derived from these accounts. These predictions were then tested on representative data in the literature. Measures of goodness-of-fit showed that the numerical predictions of a response competition account are closer to the empirical data than those of the response exclusion account. These results indicate that response competition provides a better explanation of interference in naming than does response exclusion.

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

This 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.

Pragmatic constraints do not prevent the co-activation of alternative names: Evidence from sequential naming tasks with one and two speakers

We investigated whether the phonological co-activation of alternative names in picture naming (e.g. "fish" for target "shark") is reduced by contextual constraints which render them inappropriate. In the constraining context, the target naming response was preceded by a naming response to an object from the same category (e.g., an eel) which remained visible during target naming. Therefore, use of the alternative target name "fish" would result (a) in an ambiguous response because of the visual context and (b) in a pragmatically odd response because of the previous naming response. In Experiment 1 the context pictures were named by the participants themselves and in Experiment 2 by a communication partner. In both experiments, interference from distractor words phonologically related ("finger") versus unrelated ("book") to the alternative name was observed regardless of context. This finding indicates limited flexibility in lexical activation during speech planning.

When Sufficiently Processed, Semantically Related Distractor Pictures Hamper Picture Naming

Prominent speech production models view lexical access as a competitive process. According to these models, a semantically related distractor picture should interfere with target picture naming more strongly than an unrelated one. However, several studies failed to obtain such an effect. Here, we demonstrate that semantic interference is obtained, when the distractor picture is sufficiently processed. Participants named one of two pictures presented in close temporal succession, with color cueing the target. Experiment 1 induced the prediction that the target appears first. When this prediction was violated (distractor first), semantic interference was observed. Experiment 2 ruled out that the time available for distractor processing was the driving force. These results show that semantically related distractor pictures interfere with the naming response when they are sufficiently processed. The data thus provide further support for models viewing lexical access as a competitive process.

Putting names to faces

It is well established that retrieval of names is harder than the retrieval of other identity specific information. This paper offers a review of the more influential accounts put forward as explanations of why names are so difficult to retrieve. A series of five experiments tests a number of these accounts. Experiments One to Three examine the claims that names are hard to recall because they are typically meaningless (Cohen 1990), or unique (Burton and Bruce 1992; Brédart, Valentine, Calder, and Gassi 1995). Participants are shown photographs of unfamiliar people (Experiments One and Two) or familiar people (Experiment Three) and given three pieces of information about each: a name, a unique piece of information, and a shared piece of information. Learning follows an incidental procedure, and participants are given a surprise recall test. In each experiment shared information is recalled most often, followed by unique information, followed by name. Experiment Four tests both the ‘uniqueness’ account and an account based on the specificity of the naming response (Brédart 1993). Participants are presented with famous faces and asked to categorise them by semantic group (occupation). Results indicate that less time is needed to perform this task when the group is a subset of a larger semantic category. A final experiment examines the claim that names might take longer to access because they are less often retrieved than other classes of information. Latencies show that participants remain more efficient when categorising faces by their occupation than by their name even when they have received extra practice of naming the faces. We conclude that the explanation best able to account for the data is that names are stored separately from other semantic information and can only be accessed after other identity specific information has been retrieved. However, we also argue that the demands we make of these explanations make it likely that no single theory will be able to account for all existing data.

Interstimulus Interference Effect with Stroop-Type Stimuli

The interstimulus interference in reacting to Stroop-type stimuli was investigated. Two aspects of the interstimulus organisation were analysed: the serial structure of the items in the test sheets and the spatial structure of the items on different test sheet types. More difficult serial structures were expected in cases where the correct colour-naming response to an incongruous combination was the suppressed word-naming response of either the previous or the next incongruous stimulus. Variation in the spatial organisation of the items was aimed at causing different opportunities for perceiving several adjacent items at once. As a third factor the study included not a characteristic of the test material, but a related cognitive style variable—the field dependence/independence, measured by a version of the Gottschaldt embedded figures. Every test condition (printed words in incongruous colours) was matched with a control condition (patches of colour) in a double-mirror design. A factorial design of 2 × 3 × 3 was applied and the data were processed with the aid of a three-way ANOVA. The results confirmed the importance of the interstimulus organisation of multiple Stroop-type stimuli. It is inferred that the extent to which perceptual and, in particular, selective-attention processes affect Stroop colour naming performance might be only a fraction of the whole interstimulus and intrastimulus interference effect.

Naming Faces: The Effects of Facial Distinctiveness and Surname Frequency

The effects of the frequency of a surname in the population and of the distinctiveness of a face on the latency to name famous faces were explored. Distinctive faces were named more quickly than were typical faces. Celebrities with low-frequency surnames were named faster than celebrities with high-frequency surnames, but only if their faces were distinctive. Subsequent experiments showed that the effect of surname frequency could not be attributed to differences in the articulatory onsets of the surnames and was not present in a task that did not require a naming response. Experiments in which surnames were taught to previously unfamiliar faces showed that familiar surnames (e.g. the surnames of celebrities) were produced more rapidly than were unfamiliar surnames. If familiar surnames were taught, no effect of surname frequency was observed. It is concluded that lexical access to peoples’ names is frequency sensitive—surnames shared by few individuals are accessed faster than are high-frequency surnames. However, when learning names to unfamiliar faces, familiar surnames (i.e. the surnames of people already known to the subject) are learned and accessed more quickly than unfamiliar surnames.

An Intervention Approach for Naming Problems in Children

The existence of naming difficulties among children with language learning problems has been well-documented in the literature, yet there is, at present, little research that addresses intervention. This study reports the results of a clinical experiment designed to ameliorate the naming difficulties of a school-aged boy with a language disorder. A single-subject multiple baseline across behaviors design was employed to investigate the effectiveness of an intervention protocol designed to increase the child’s elaborative word knowledge of sets of words through a deep-level of processing, and thus improve his naming performance. Results indicated that the child decreased his naming response time and naming error rate relative to baseline levels.

Effect of Vocal Feedback on Stroop Color-Word Interference

The present study tested the hypothesis that vocal feedback affects the interference obtained during performance on the Stroop Color-Word task. Two measures were studied as indicators of ability to name colors on the Stroop, speed (performance time) and accuracy (number of errors). Speed of performance on the interference task by 16 male college students was not aided by reduction of vocal feedback. Accuracy of performance in the interference condition was strongly facilitated by reduction of vocal feedback, while little change was noted with no interference. These results are consistent with a view that in vocal feedback on Stroop interference the experience of a mismatch between the auditory feedback produced by the weaker color-naming response in the presence of the prepotent tendency to make the reading response increases interference.