Search

The language production literature has given only little attention to the dynamics of closed class word selection, such as determiner selection, and its temporal relation to the selection of open class words. The goal of this paper was to investigate whether determiner selection follows serially after lexical selection, or whether there is cascading. If there is cascading, the additional goal was to determine whether the selection of the correct determinerinvolves a competitive process. A go-nogo picture–word interference task was therefore performed in which gender congruency and categorical relation between distractor and target was manipulated and EEG was recorded. The ERP analysis showed that categorical relatedness helped determiner selection on gender congruent trials, but hindered on incongruent trials. This indicates that lexical selection and determiner selection overlap in time, and suggest that determiner selection is a competitive process.

In their comment, Roelofs, Piai, and Schriefers (2011) argue against our interpretation of the distractor frequency effect in terms of a late blocking mechanism. They state that the experiments reported by Dhooge and Hartsuiker (2010) can be incorporated in WEAVER++ when assuming an early input blocking mechanism. We first rectify a misunderstanding regarding the claim of the target article. Next, we show that Roelofs et al. provide no evidence that allows differentiating between early and late blocking accounts. We end by providing evidence in favor of our claim that distractor blocking occurs late and specify our blocking account in terms of verbal self-monitoring.

Current views of lexical selection in language production differ in whether they assume lexical selection by competition or not. To account for recent data with the picture-word interference (PWI) task, both views need to be supplemented with assumptions about the control processes that block distractor naming. In this paper, we propose that such control is achieved by the verbal self-monitor. If monitoring is involved in the PWI task, performance in this task should be affected by variables that influence monitoring such as lexicality, lexicality of context, and time pressure. Indeed, pictures were named more quickly when the distractor was a pseudoword than a word (Experiment 1), which reversed in a context of pseudoword items (Experiment 3). Additionally, under time pressure, participants frequently named the distractor instead of the picture, suggesting that the monitor failed to exclude the distractor response. Such errors occurred more often with word than pseudoword distractors (Experiment 2); however, the effect flipped around in a pseudoword context (Experiment 4). Our findings argue for the role of the monitoring system in lexical selection. Implications for competitive and non-competitive models are discussed.

Even in the presence of irrelevant stimuli, word production is a highly accurate and fluent process. But how do speakers prevent themselves from naming the wrong things? One possibility is that an attentional system inhibits task-irrelevant representations. Alternatively, a verbal self-monitoring system might check speech for accuracy and remove errors stemming from irrelevant information. Because self-monitoring is sensitive to social appropriateness, taboo errors should be intercepted more than neutral errors are. To prevent embarrassment, speakers might also speak more slowly when confronted with taboo distractors. Our results from two experiments are consistent with the self-monitoring account: Examining picture-naming speed (Experiment 1) and accuracy (Experiment 2), we found fewer naming errors but longer picture-naming latencies for pictures presented with taboo distractors than for pictures presented with neutral distractors. These results suggest that when intrusions of irrelevant words are highly undesirable, speakers do not simply inhibit these words: Rather, the language-production system adjusts itself to the context and filters out the undesirable words.

A tight correspondence has been postulated between the representations of number and space. The spatial numerical association of response codes (SNARC) effect, which reflects the observation that people respond faster with the left-hand side to small numbers and with the right-hand side to large numbers, is regarded as strong evidence for this correspondence. The dominant explanation of the SNARC effect is that it results from visuospatial coding of magnitude (e.g. the mental number line hypothesis). In a series of experiments, we demonstrated that this is only part of the story and that verbal-spatial coding influences processes and representations that have been believed to be purely visuospatial. Additionally, when both accounts were directly contrasted, verbal-spatial coding was observed in absence of visuospatial coding. Relations to other number-space interactions and implications for other tasks are discussed., Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

A picture-word interference experiment examined the origin of the distractor frequency effect, the effect that pictures are named slower in the context of low-frequency than high-frequency words (Miozzo & Caramazza, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 132, 228–252, 2003). We compared two accounts of the effect: an early, input-related account and a late, response-related account. Participants named high and low-frequency pictures with low and high-frequency distractors in two conditions. In the immediate naming condition, picture and distractor were presented simultaneously. In the delayed naming condition, the distractor was presented 1,000 ms after the picture; pictures had to be named upon distractor presentation. There was a distractor frequency effect in both conditions, but an effect of picture frequency only in the immediate naming condition (showing that in the delayed naming condition, lexical selection had been completed). These results support a late origin of the distractor frequency effect.

In 3 experiments, subjects named pictures with low- or high-frequency superimposed distractor words. In a 1st experiment, we replicated the finding that low-frequency words induce more interference in picture naming than high-frequency words (i.e., distractor frequency effect; Miozzo & Caramazza, 2003). According to the response exclusion hypothesis, this effect has its origin at a postlexical stage and is related to a response buffer. The account predicts that the distractor frequency effect should only be present when a response to the word enters the response buffer. This was tested by masking the distractor (Experiment 2) and by presenting it at various time points before stimulus onset (Experiment 3). Results supported the hypothesis by showing that the effect was only present when distractors were visible, and if they were presented in close proximity to the target picture. These results have implications for the models of lexical access and for the tasks that can be used to study this process.