Set size and repetition in the picture–word interference paradigm: implications for models of naming

Caramazza and Costa (Cognition 75 (2000) B51) reported results which demonstrate that a semantically related word distractor interferes in picture naming even when it is not in the response set and there is no possibility for mediated interference. They interpreted the results to be problematic for the model of lexical access proposed by Levelt, Roelofs, and Meyer (Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (1999) 1). Roelofs (Cognition 80 (2001, this issue 283--90)) argues that those results are not inconsistent with Levelt et al.'s model when certain new assumptions about the mechanism of lexical selection are considered. Here we show that even with these assumptions the model still makes the wrong predictions. We report new results which demonstrate that the semantic interference and facilitation effects that are obtained respectively in the basic-level and category-level naming variants of the picture-word interference paradigm are not the result of response set size and response repetitions.

[1]  Albert Costa,et al.  Level of categorisation effect: A novel effect in the picture-word interference paradigm , 2003 .

[2]  A. Roelofs,et al.  A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking , 1992, Cognition.

[3]  J. Jescheniak,et al.  Discrete serial versus cascaded processing in lexical access in speech production : Further evidence from the coactivation of near-synonyms , 1998 .

[4]  W. Glaser,et al.  Context effects in stroop-like word and picture processing. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[5]  Wido La Heij,et al.  Semantic interference, orthographic facilitation, and their interaction in naming tasks. , 1995 .

[6]  Stephen J. Lupker,et al.  The semantic nature of response competition in the picture-word interference task , 1979 .

[7]  Ardi Roelofs,et al.  Set size and repetition matter: comment on Caramazza and Costa (2000) , 2001, Cognition.

[8]  A. Meyer.  The time course of phonological encoding in language production: Phonological encoding inside a syllable , 1991 .

[9]  R. R. Peterson,et al.  Lexical selection and phonological encoding during language production: Evidence for cascaded processing. , 1998 .

[10]  P. Starreveld,et al.  What about phonological facilitation, response-set membership, and phonological coactivation? , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[11]  A. Meyer.  Lexical Access in Phrase and Sentence Production: Results from Picture–Word Interference Experiments , 1996 .

[12]  Willem J. M. Levelt,et al.  A theory of lexical access in speech production , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[13]  Wido La Heij,et al.  Components of Stroop-like interference in picture naming , 1988 .

[14]  W. Levelt.  Models of word production , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[15]  Albert Costa,et al.  The semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm: does the response set matter? , 2000, Cognition.

[16]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  The relation between syntactic and phonological knowledge in lexical access: evidence from the `tip-of-the-tongue' phenomenon , 1997, Cognition.

[17]  A. Caramazza,et al.  The cognate facilitation effect: implications for models of lexical access. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[18]  Wido La Heij,et al.  Picture-word interference increases with target-set size , 1995 .