DISTRACTOR EFFECTS IN PICTURE NAMING

In picture-word interference experiments, participants name pictures (e.g., of a cat) while trying to ignore distractor words. Mean response time (RT) is typically longer with semantically related distractor words (e.g., dog) than with unrelated words (e.g., shoe), called semantic interference. Previous research has examined the RT distributional characteristics of distractor effects by performing ex-Gaussian analyses, which reveal whether effects are present in the normal part of the distribution (the μ parameter), its long right tail (the τ parameter), or both. One previous study linked the semantic interference effect selectively to the distribution tail. In the present study, we replicated the semantic interference effect in the mean picture naming RTs. Distributional analysis of the RTs and those of a previous study revealed that semantic interference was present in both μ and τ. These results provide evidence that the effect is not selectively linked to the τ parameter, and they warn against any simple one-to-one mapping between semantic interference and distributional parameters.

[1]  Francesca Peressotti,et al.  Distributional analyses in the picture–word interference paradigm: Exploring the semantic interference and the distractor frequency effects , 2015, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  Randi C. Martin,et al.  Selective inhibition and naming performance in semantic blocking, picture-word interference, and color-word Stroop tasks. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[4]  R. V. D. Meij,et al.  Event-related potentials and oscillatory brain responses associated with semantic and Stroop-like interference effects in overt naming , 2012, Brain Research.

[5]  M. Mesulam,et al.  Semantic interference during object naming in agrammatic and logopenic primary progressive aphasia (PPA) , 2012, Brain and Language.

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

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

[8]  C. Thompson,et al.  The use of the picture–word interference paradigm to examine naming abilities in aphasic individuals , 2010, Aphasiology.

[9]  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.

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

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

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

[13]  Ardi Roelofs,et al.  Attention and Gaze Control in Picture Naming, Word Reading, and Word Categorizing. , 2007 .

[14]  A. Heathcote,et al.  QMLE: Fast, robust, and efficient estimation of distribution functions based on quantiles , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

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

[16]  Randi C. Martin,et al.  Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  P. Starreveld,et al.  Time-course analysis of semantic and orthographic context effects in picture naming. , 1996 .

[18]  D. Balota,et al.  Stroop performance in healthy younger and older adults and in individuals with dementia of the Alzheimer's type. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  A Heathcote,et al.  Response time distributions and the Stroop Task: a test of the Cohen, Dunbar, and McClelland (1990) model. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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

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

[23]  K Rayner,et al.  Graphemic and semantic similarity effects in the picture-word interference task. , 1986, British journal of psychology.

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

[25]  W. Glaser,et al.  Time course analysis of the Stroop phenomenon. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[27]  W. Wundt.  Grundriss der Psychologie , 1896 .

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

[29]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Response Times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Organization , 1986 .

[30]  J. M. Cattell.  THE TIME IT TAKES TO SEE AND NAME OBJECTS , 1886 .