Distributional analyses in the picture–word interference paradigm: Exploring the semantic interference and the distractor frequency effects

The present study explores the distributional features of two important effects within the picture–word interference paradigm: the semantic interference and the distractor frequency effects. These two effects display different and specific distributional profiles. Semantic interference appears greatly reduced in faster response times, while it reaches its full magnitude only in slower responses. This can be interpreted as a sign of fluctuant attentional efficiency in resolving response conflict. In contrast, the distractor frequency effect is mediated mainly by a distributional shift, with low-frequency distractors uniformly shifting reaction time distribution towards a slower range of latencies. This finding fits with the idea that distractor frequency exerts its effect by modulating the point in time in which operations required to discard the distractor can start. Taken together, these results are congruent with current theoretical accounts of both the semantic interference and distractor frequency effects. Critically, distributional analyses highlight and further describe the different cognitive dynamics underlying these two effects, suggesting that this analytical tool is able to offer important insights about lexical access during speech production.

[1]  Jeffrey N Rouder,et al.  Exploring the differences in distributional properties between Stroop and Simon effects using delta plots , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[2]  R. Ratcliff.  Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[3]  D. Mewhort,et al.  Analysis of Response Time Distributions: An Example Using the Stroop Task , 1991 .

[4]  Albert Postma,et al.  Limitations in processing resources and speech monitoring , 2002 .

[5]  Bradford Z. Mahon,et al.  Lexical selection is not by competition: a reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[6]  D. Balota,et al.  Levels of selective attention revealed through analyses of response time distributions. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  Denis Cousineau,et al.  Fitting distributions using maximum likelihood: Methods and packages , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[8]  Richard R. Rosinski,et al.  Picture-word interference is semantically based. , 1977 .

[9]  A. Roelofs,et al.  Selective and nonselective inhibition of competitors in picture naming , 2013, Memory & cognition.

[10]  Herbert Schriefers,et al.  Semantic interference in immediate and delayed naming and reading: Attention and task decisions , 2011 .

[11]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  Now You See it, Now you Don't: On Turning Semantic Interference Into Facilitation in a Stroop-Like Task , 2006, Cortex.

[12]  Cristina Burani,et al.  Word naming times and psycholinguistic norms for Italian nouns , 2002, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[13]  Danielle R Kleinman.  Resolving semantic interference during word production requires central attention. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[14]  James H. Neely,et al.  When Word Identification Gets Tough, Retrospective Semantic Processing Comes to the Rescue. , 2012 .

[15]  A. Caramazza,et al.  When more is less: a counterintuitive effect of distractor frequency in the picture-word interference paradigm. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[16]  A. Roelofs,et al.  Working memory capacity and dual-task interference in picture naming. , 2013, Acta psychologica.

[17]  R. Job,et al.  What Phonological Facilitation Tells about Semantic Interference: A Dual-Task Study , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[18]  Randi C. Martin,et al.  Semantic picture–word interference is a postperceptual effect , 2012, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[19]  R. Hartsuiker,et al.  The distractor frequency effect in picture-word interference: Evidence for response exclusion. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[20]  N. Janssen,et al.  Relative speed of processing affects interference in Stroop and picture–word interference paradigms: evidence from the distractor frequency effect , 2014 .

[21]  A. Roelofs,et al.  Sources of individual differences in the speed of naming objects and actions: The contribution of executive control , 2012, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[22]  David A. Balota,et al.  Beyond mean response latency: Response time distributional analyses of semantic priming , 2008 .

[23]  Herbert Schriefers,et al.  Distractor strength and selective attention in picture-naming performance , 2012, Memory & cognition.

[24]  Monica Gori,et al.  Cross-Sensory Facilitation Reveals Neural Interactions between Visual and Tactile Motion in Humans , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[25]  Adrian Staub,et al.  Distributional analysis of the transposed-letter neighborhood effect on naming latency. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[26]  Niels Taatgen,et al.  RACE/A: An Architectural Account of the Interactions Between Learning, Task Control, and Retrieval Dynamics , 2012, Cogn. Sci..

[27]  F X Alario,et al.  A set of 400 pictures standardized for French: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, and age of acquisition , 1999, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[28]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Interactions between stimulus-stimulus congruence and stimulus-response compatibility , 1997 .

[29]  Lorella Lotto,et al.  Naming times and standardized norms for the italian PD/DPSS set of 266 pictures: Direct comparisons with American, English, French, and Spanish published databases , 2000, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[30]  E Berendsen,et al.  Goal neglect and inhibitory limitations: dissociable causes of interference effects in conflict situations. , 1999, Acta psychologica.

[31]  J. H. Neely.  Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. , 1991 .

[32]  G S Dell,et al.  A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. , 1986, Psychological review.

[33]  A. Caramazza.  How many levels of processing are there in lexical access , 1997 .

[34]  Herbert Schriefers,et al.  Locus of semantic interference in picture naming: Evidence from dual-task performance. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[35]  A. Postma.  Detection of errors during speech production: a review of speech monitoring models , 2000, Cognition.

[36]  Jeffrey N. Rouder,et al.  A hierarchical model for estimating response time distributions , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[38]  Patrick Bonin,et al.  A new set of 299 pictures for psycholinguistic studies: French norms for name agreement, image agreement, conceptual familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, age of acquisition, and naming latencies , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[39]  M. Steinhauser,et al.  Distinguishing response conflict and task conflict in the Stroop task: evidence from ex-Gaussian distribution analysis. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[40]  David A. Balota,et al.  Individual differences in the joint effects of semantic priming and word frequency revealed by RT distributional analyses: The role of lexical integrity , 2009 .

[41]  E. Navarrete,et al.  About the locus of the distractor frequency effect: Evidence from the production of clitic pronouns , 2013 .

[42]  R. Job,et al.  The picture-word interference effect is not a Stroop effect , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[43]  Robert J Hartsuiker,et al.  The distractor frequency effect in a delayed picture-word interference task: further evidence for a late locus of distractor exclusion , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[45]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Basic processes in reading : visual word recognition , 1993 .

[46]  A. Roelofs,et al.  The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production , 1997, Cognition.

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

[48]  W. Glaser,et al.  The time course of picture-word interference. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[49]  A. Roelofs.  Tracing attention and the activation flow of spoken word planning using eye movements. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[50]  Bradford Z. Mahon,et al.  Picture–word interference and the Response-Exclusion Hypothesis: A response to Mulatti and Coltheart , 2012, Cortex.

[51]  A. Roelofs,et al.  Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. , 2003, Psychological review.

[52]  Derek Besner,et al.  Reading aloud is not automatic: processing capacity is required to generate a phonological code from print. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[54]  R. Hartsuiker,et al.  Distractor exclusion is not an early process: a reply to Roelofs, Piai, and Schriefers (2011). , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[55]  Colin M. Macleod.  Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. , 1991, Psychological bulletin.

[56]  A. Roelofs,et al.  Attention, spatial integration, and the tail of response time distributions in Stroop task performance , 2012, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[57]  Athanassios Protopapas,et al.  Check Vocal: A program to facilitate checking the accuracy and response time of vocal responses from DMDX , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[58]  Adrian Staub,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human Perception and Performance The Distribution of Fixation Durations During Reading : Effects of Stimulus Quality , 2011 .

[59]  P. Jolicoeur,et al.  A Solution to the Effect of Sample Size on Outlier Elimination , 1994 .

[60]  Ardi Roelofs,et al.  From Popper to Lakatos: A case for cumulative computational modeling , 2005 .

[61]  D. Balota,et al.  Moving Beyond the Mean in Studies of Mental Chronometry , 2011 .

[62]  Francesca Peressotti,et al.  Exploring the additive effects of stimulus quality and word frequency: The influence of local and list-wide prime relatedness , 2013, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[63]  Herbert Schriefers,et al.  Selective attention and distractor frequency in naming performance: comment on Dhooge and Hartsuiker (2010). , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[64]  Kenneth I Forster,et al.  DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[65]  Ardi Roelofs,et al.  Dynamics of the attentional control of word retrieval: analyses of response time distributions. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[66]  Gabriela Garrido Rodriguez,et al.  Attentional Inhibition in Bilingual Naming Performance: Evidence from Delta-Plot Analyses , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[67]  R. Hartsuiker,et al.  Lexical selection and verbal self-monitoring: Effects of lexicality, context, and time pressure in picture-word interference , 2012 .

[68]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Chronometric Evidence for Central Postponement in Temporally Overlapping Tasks , 2003 .

[69]  E. Aarts,et al.  Attentional control of task and response in lateral and medial frontal cortex: Brain activity and reaction time distributions , 2009, Neuropsychologia.

[70]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  Modulating the masked congruence priming effect with the hands and the mouth. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.