Interference in joint picture naming.

In 4 experiments we showed that picture naming latencies are affected by beliefs about the task concurrently performed by another speaker. Participants took longer to name pictures when they believed that their partner concurrently named pictures than when they believed their partner was silent (Experiments 1 and 4) or concurrently categorized the pictures as being from the same or from different semantic categories (Experiment 2). However, picture naming latencies were not affected by beliefs about what one's partner said, as it did not matter whether participants believed their partner produced the same utterance, or an utterance that differed by ordering (Experiments 1 and 2) or lexical content (Experiments 3 and 4). These findings are consistent with the proposal that speakers represent whether another speaker is preparing to speak but not what they are preparing to say.

[1]  W. Prinz,et al.  Representing others' actions: just like one's own? , 2003, Cognition.

[2]  Denis Cousineau,et al.  QMPE: Estimating Lognormal, Wald, and Weibull RT distributions with a parameter-dependent lower bound , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[3]  G. Knoblich,et al.  The case for motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. , 2005, Psychological bulletin.

[4]  E. Schegloff Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation , 2000, Language in Society.

[5]  R. Ratcliff Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. , 1993, Psychological bulletin.

[6]  A. Caramazza,et al.  The locus of the frequency effect in picture naming: When recognizing is not enough , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[7]  Andrea M Philipp,et al.  Evidence for a Role of the Responding Agent in the Joint Compatibility Effect , 2010, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[8]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[9]  W. Prinz Perception and Action Planning , 1997 .

[10]  A. Voss,et al.  Social Presence Effects on the Stroop Task: Boundary Conditions and an Alternative Account , 2008 .

[11]  N. Sebanz,et al.  Psychological research on joint action: Theory and data , 2011 .

[12]  D. Wolpert Computational approaches to motor control , 1997, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[13]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  Quantile maximum likelihood estimation of response time distributions , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[14]  Wen-Jui Kuo,et al.  Action Co-representation is Tuned to Other Humans , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[15]  W. Glaser,et al.  The time course of picture-word interference. , 1984 .

[16]  Herbert Schriefers,et al.  Ease of processing constrains the activation flow in the conceptual-lexical system during speech planning. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  E. Schegloff,et al.  A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation , 1974 .

[18]  W. Prinz,et al.  How two share a task: corepresenting stimulus-response mappings. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  M. Pickering,et al.  Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue , 2004, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[20]  P. Kay,et al.  Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  Henk Aarts,et al.  When competition merges people's behavior: Interdependency activates shared action representations , 2010 .

[22]  Michele Miozzo,et al.  Evidence for a cascade model of lexical access in speech production. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[23]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  What is Shared in Joint Action? Issues of Co-representation, Response Conflict, and Agent Identification , 2011 .

[24]  Sarah J. White,et al.  Distributional effects of word frequency on eye fixation durations. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[25]  Wido La Heij,et al.  Picture Naming in Picture Context: Semantic Interference or Semantic Facilitation? , 2003 .

[26]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  Please Scroll down for Article Social Neuroscience Action Co-representation: the Joint Snarc Effect Action Co-representation: the Joint Snarc Effect , 2022 .

[27]  Antje S. Meyer,et al.  Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production : Picture word interference studies , 1990 .

[28]  Mark C. Smith,et al.  Horizontal information flow in spoken sentence production. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[29]  Wen-Jui Kuo,et al.  A common coding framework in self–other interaction: evidence from joint action task , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[30]  T. Florian Jaeger,et al.  Incremental Phonological Encoding during Unscripted Sentence Production , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[31]  N. Cowan,et al.  The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: how frequent are attention shifts to one's name in an irrelevant auditory channel? , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[32]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[33]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[34]  Antje S Meyer,et al.  Activation of distractor names in the picture-picture interference paradigm , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[35]  H. Bekkering,et al.  Joint action: bodies and minds moving together , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[36]  M. Pickering,et al.  An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. , 2013, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[37]  Günther Knoblich,et al.  The joint flanker effect: sharing tasks with real and imagined co-actors , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[38]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  Twin Peaks: An ERP Study of Action Planning and Control in Coacting Individuals , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[39]  Albert Costa,et al.  Phonological activation of ignored pictures: Further evidence for a cascade model of lexical access , 2005 .

[40]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  How Social Are Task Representations? , 2009, Psychological science.

[41]  D. Barr,et al.  Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. , 2013, Journal of memory and language.

[42]  J. Jescheniak,et al.  On the flexibility of grammatical advance planning during sentence production: Effects of cognitive load on multiple lexical access. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[43]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  The Virtual Co-Actor: The Social Simon Effect does not Rely on Online Feedback from the Other , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[44]  W. Levelt,et al.  Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form , 1994 .

[45]  Markus F Damian,et al.  Locus of semantic interference in picture-word interference tasks , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[46]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[47]  Pienie Zwitserlood,et al.  Picture-Induced Semantic Interference Reflects Lexical Competition during Object Naming , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[48]  Anne Cutler,et al.  A theory of lexical access in speech production , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.