Picture–word interference and the Response-Exclusion Hypothesis: A response to Mulatti and Coltheart

Mulatti and Coltheart (2011, this issue) review and summarize several findings from the picture-word interference paradigm that the authors argue challenge the Response Exclusion Hypothesis. However, the hypothesis they take to be the Response Exclusion Hypothesis is not that theory—it is an account developed by Mulatti and Coltheart that holds that target naming latencies in the picture-word paradigm are affected only by the process of excluding the distractor word (and by nothing else). We consider some of the background assumptions implicit in Mulatti and Coltheart’s discussion that may have led to this misattribution. Finally, we report a replication of an effect originally described by Dalrymple-Alford (1972) that serves as an empirical basis for reiterating the main points of our proposal and outlining the challenges that lie ahead.

[1]  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.

[2]  Gary S. Dell,et al.  Stages in sentence production: An analysis of speech error data , 1981 .

[3]  Gary S Dell,et al.  Saying the right word at the right time: Syntagmatic and paradigmatic interference in sentence production , 2008, Language and cognitive processes.

[4]  T. Mexia,et al.  Author ' s personal copy , 2009 .

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

[7]  E. C. Dalrymple-Alford Associative facilitation and interference in the Stroop color-word task , 1972 .

[8]  A. Caramazza,et al.  Lexical organization of nouns and verbs in the brain , 1991, Nature.

[9]  Wido La Heij,et al.  Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in word translation: Implications for models of lexical access in language production , 2003 .

[10]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Orthographic and phonological activation in auditory and visual word recognition , 1980, Memory & cognition.

[11]  Alissa Melinger,et al.  Semantic context effects in language production: A swinging lexical network proposal and a review , 2009 .

[12]  Bradford Z. Mahon,et al.  A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content , 2008, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[13]  Gregory Hickok,et al.  Eight Problems for the Mirror Neuron Theory of Action Understanding in Monkeys and Humans , 2009, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[14]  A. Chatterjee Disembodying cognition , 2010, Language and Cognition.

[15]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  Semantic interference in a delayed naming task: evidence for the response exclusion hypothesis. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[16]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  Why does lexical selection have to be so hard? Comment on Abdel Rahman and Melinger's swinging lexical network proposal , 2009 .

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

[18]  Dicky Gilbers,et al.  Language and Cognition 2 , 1992 .

[19]  Edouard Machery,et al.  Concept empiricism: A methodological critique , 2007, Cognition.

[20]  Gary M. Oppenheim,et al.  The dark side of incremental learning: A model of cumulative semantic interference during lexical access in speech production , 2010, Cognition.