Articulatory preparation in the delayed naming task

The assumptions that acoustic onset must follow articulatory onset by a fixed delay and that response execution level processes are always effectively isolated in the delayed naming task were investigated with respect to the issue of articulatory preparation in three experiments. The results of these experiments showed that for the delayed naming task with the standard instructions (1) there was differential preparation across the different delays, with articulatory preparation being initiated earlier relative to the signal to respond in the longer delays (in some cases, even before the signal to respond was given); (2) the articulatory onset to acoustic onset interval (AAI) was variable across the different delays as a direct consequence of differential preparation; and (3) preparation included the building up of pressure for word-initial plosives when it was possible. However, when explicit instructions were given to minimize articulatory preparation in advance, an acoustic latency difference between plosives and nasals was found even with long delays. Moreover, comparison of the delayed naming task under different instructions and the standard naming task showed that execution of a response, in terms of acoustic latency and segment duration, can vary systematically across instructions and tasks. Methodological and theoretical implications of these results are discussed.

[1]  K. Harris,et al.  A Temporal Model of Speech Production , 1981, Phonetica.

[2]  Christopher T. Kello,et al.  Effect of onset cluster complexity in speeded naming: A test of rule-based approaches. , 1999 .

[3]  Tamiko Azuma,et al.  Open wide and say blah! attentional dynamics of delayed naming , 1997 .

[4]  Michael C. Doyle,et al.  Effects of frequency on visual word recognition tasks: where are they? , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[5]  S Kornblum,et al.  Does motor programming necessitate response execution? , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  On the roles of frequency and lexical access in word naming , 1990 .

[7]  G. Stelmach Information processing in motor control and learning , 1978 .

[8]  F. M. Henry,et al.  Increased Response Latency for Complicated Movements and A “Memory Drum” Theory of Neuromotor Reaction , 1960 .

[9]  H. Heuer,et al.  Generation and modulation of action patterns , 1986 .

[10]  Takao Fushimi,et al.  Consistency, frequency, and lexicality effects in naming Japanese Kanji. , 1999 .

[11]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Implicit speech: Mechanism in perceptual encoding? , 1970 .

[12]  Stephen Monsell,et al.  Programming of Complex Sequences: Evidence from the Timing of Rapid Speech and Other Productions , 1986 .

[13]  Christopher T. Kello,et al.  Control over the time course of cognition in the tempo-naming task. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  Stephen Monsell,et al.  Motor Programs and Hierarchical Organization in the Control of Rapid Speech , 1988 .

[15]  Anders Löfqvist,et al.  Speech as Audible Gestures , 1990 .

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

[17]  D. Meyer,et al.  The point of no return in choice reaction time: controlled and ballistic stages of response preparation. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  Alain Content,et al.  The grapho-phonological system of written French: Statistical analysis and empirical validation , 1999, ACL.

[19]  Stephen Monsell,et al.  Frequency effects in lexical tasks: Reply to Balota and Chumbley. , 1990 .

[20]  R A Abrams,et al.  Mental chronometry: beyond onset latencies in the lexical decision task. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[21]  Stephen Monsell,et al.  The Latency and Duration of Rapid Movement Sequences: Comparisons of Speech and Typewriting , 1978 .

[22]  D. Balota,et al.  The locus of word-frequency effects in the pronunciation task: Lexical access and/or production? ☆ , 1985 .

[23]  Rebecca Treiman,et al.  Phonetic Biases in Voice Key Response Time Measurements , 2002 .

[24]  K. Forster,et al.  Lexical Access and Naming Time. , 1973 .

[25]  S. T. Klapp,et al.  Response programming in simple and choice reactions. , 1974, Journal of motor behavior.

[26]  Christopher T. Kello,et al.  Initial phoneme versus whole-word criterion to initiate pronunciation: Evidence based on response latency and initial phoneme duration. , 1998 .

[27]  David E. Irwin,et al.  Modern mental chronometry , 1988, Biological Psychology.

[28]  David A. Balota,et al.  Mental Chronometry: Beyond Reaction Time , 1991 .

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

[30]  Max Coltheart,et al.  Characterizing the motor execution stage of speech production: consonantal effects on delayed naming latency and onset duration. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  Christopher T. Kello,et al.  Runword: An IBM-PC software package for the collection and acoustic analysis of speeded naming responses , 1998 .

[32]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  On the complexities of measuring naming. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[33]  Kenneth I. Forster,et al.  Word frequency and the pronunciation task: The contribution of articulatory fluency , 1990 .