On the categorical nature of the semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm

Two picture-word interference experiments are reported in which the boundaries of the semantic interference effect are explored. In both experiments, participants named pictures (e.g., a picture of a car) that appeared with superimposed word distractors. Distractor words from the same semantic category as the word for the picture (e.g., CAR) produced semantic interference, whereas semantically related distractors from a different category (e.g.,Bumper) led to semantic facilitation. In Experiment 2, the semantic facilitation from semantically related distractors was replicated. These results indicate that a semantic relationship between picture and distractor does not necessarily lead to interference and in fact can lead to facilitation. In all but one case tested until now, a semantic relationship between picture and distractor has led to semantic facilitation. The implications of these results for the assumption that the semantic interference effect arises as a consequence of lexical competition are discussed.

[1]  A. Caramazza,et al.  Where Do Semantic Errors Come From? , 1990, Cortex.

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

[3]  W. Heij,et al.  Components of Stroop-like interference in picture naming , 1988, Memory & cognition.

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

[5]  Albert Costa,et al.  Set size and repetition in the picture–word interference paradigm: implications for models of naming , 2001, Cognition.

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

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

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

[9]  Melanie Vitkovitch,et al.  The Effects of Distractor Words on Naming Pictures at the Subordinate Level , 1999 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[17]  Stephen J. Lupker,et al.  Input, Decision, and Response Factors in Picture-Word Interference , 1981 .

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

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

[20]  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.

[21]  J. Segui,et al.  Semantic and Associative Priming in Picture Naming , 2000, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.