Interactions between lexical access and articulation

ABSTRACT This study investigates the interaction of lexical access and articulation in spoken word production, examining two dimensions along which theories vary. First, does articulatory variation reflect a fixed plan, or do lexical access-articulatory interactions continue after response initiation? Second, to what extent are interactive mechanisms hard-wired properties of the production system, as opposed to flexible? In two picture naming experiments, we used semantic neighbour manipulations to induce lexical and conceptual co-activation. Our results provide evidence for multiple sources of interaction, both before and after response initiation. While interactive effects can vary across participants, we do not find strong evidence of variation of effects within individuals, suggesting that these interactions are relatively fixed features of each individual’s production system.

[1]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Dynamically adapted context-specific hyper-articulation: Feedback from interlocutors affects speakers' subsequent pronunciations. , 2016, Journal of memory and language.

[2]  Brenda Rapp,et al.  Does segmental overlap help or hurt? Evidence from blocked cyclic naming in spoken and written production , 2016, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[3]  Joseph Keshet,et al.  Automatic analysis of slips of the tongue: Insights into the cognitive architecture of speech production , 2016, Cognition.

[4]  Esteban Buz,et al.  The (in)dependence of articulation and lexical planning during isolated word production , 2016, Language, cognition and neuroscience.

[5]  Angela Fink.  The Role of Domain-General Executive Functions, Articulation, and Conceptualization during Spoken Word Production , 2016 .

[6]  Angela Fink,et al.  The Influence of Word Retrieval and Planning on Phonetic Variation: Implications for Exemplar Models , 2015, Linguistics vanguard : multimodal online journal.

[7]  Christopher T. Kello,et al.  The segment as the minimal planning unit in speech production and reading aloud: evidence and implications , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[8]  Matthew Goldrick,et al.  Erratum to: Grammatical constraints on phonological encoding in speech production , 2015, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[9]  D. Bates,et al.  Parsimonious Mixed Models , 2015, 1506.04967.

[10]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  Articulatory and lexical repetition effects on durational reduction: speaker experience vs. common ground , 2015 .

[11]  Hughes Julie,et al.  Selection Demands and Working Memory Mediate Interference during Naming , 2015 .

[12]  Bradford Z. Mahon,et al.  Lexical selection is not by competition: Evidence from the blocked naming paradigm , 2014 .

[13]  Scott Seyfarth,et al.  Word informativity influences acoustic duration: Effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation , 2014, Cognition.

[14]  Tatiana T. Schnur,et al.  The persistence of cumulative semantic interference during naming , 2014 .

[15]  A. Roelofs,et al.  Tracking eye movements to localize Stroop interference in naming: word planning versus articulatory buffering. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[16]  Matthew Goldrick,et al.  Grammatical constraints on phonological encoding in speech production , 2014, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[17]  Randi C. Martin,et al.  Lexical selection in the semantically blocked cyclic naming task: the role of cognitive control and learning , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[18]  Duane G. Watson,et al.  Repetition reduction: lexical repetition in the absence of referent repetition. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[19]  G. Logan,et al.  On the ability to inhibit thought and action: general and special theories of an act of control. , 2014, Psychological review.

[20]  Rebecca Scarborough,et al.  Clarity in communication: "clear" speech authenticity and lexical neighborhood density effects in speech production and perception. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Eva Belke.  Long-lasting inhibitory semantic context effects on object naming are necessarily conceptually mediated: Implications for models of lexical-semantic encoding , 2013 .

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

[23]  Eva Belke,et al.  Cumulative and Non-Cumulative Semantic Interference in Object Naming: Evidence from Blocked and Continuous Manipulations of Semantic Context , 2013, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[24]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  A processing-centered look at the contribution of givenness to durational reduction , 2012 .

[25]  Albert Costa,et al.  Cumulative semantic interference is blind to language: Implications for models of bilingual speech production , 2012 .

[26]  Bradford Z. Mahon,et al.  Factors Determining Semantic Facilitation and Interference in the Cyclic Naming Paradigm , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[27]  Matthew Goldrick,et al.  Interaction and representational integration: Evidence from speech errors , 2011, Cognition.

[28]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  The cumulative semantic cost does not reflect lexical selection by competition. , 2010, Acta psychologica.

[29]  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.

[30]  Ann R Bradlow,et al.  Variability in Word Duration as a Function of Probability, Speech Style, and Prosody , 2009, Language and speech.

[31]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[32]  Wim Fias,et al.  Post-error slowing: An orienting account , 2009, Cognition.

[33]  Elisabeth Dévière,et al.  Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R , 2009 .

[34]  Jason M. Brenier,et al.  Predictability Effects on Durations of Content and Function Words in Conversational English , 2009 .

[35]  Markus F Damian,et al.  Flexible and inflexible response components: a Stroop study with typewritten output. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[36]  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.

[37]  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.

[38]  Matthew A Goldrick,et al.  Limited interaction in speech production: Chronometric, speech error, and neuropsychological evidence , 2006 .

[39]  S. Blumstein,et al.  Cascading activation from phonological planning to articulatory processes: Evidence from tongue twisters , 2006 .

[40]  M. Coltheart,et al.  Cumulative semantic inhibition in picture naming: experimental and computational studies , 2006, Cognition.

[41]  M. Schwartz,et al.  Semantic interference during blocked-cyclic naming: Evidence from aphasia , 2006 .

[42]  Mirjam Ernestus,et al.  Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[43]  A. Meyer,et al.  Refractory effects in picture naming as assessed in a semantic blocking paradigm , 2005, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[44]  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.

[45]  Alice Turk,et al.  The Smooth Signal Redundancy Hypothesis: A Functional Explanation for Relationships between Redundancy, Prosodic Prominence, and Duration in Spontaneous Speech , 2004, Language and speech.

[46]  B. Rossion,et al.  Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart's Object Pictorial Set: The Role of Surface Detail in Basic-Level Object Recognition , 2004, Perception.

[47]  R. Wright.  Phonetic Interpretation Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI: Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation , 2004 .

[48]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Timed picture naming: Extended norms and validation against previous studies , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[49]  M. Damian.  Articulatory duration in single-word speech production. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[50]  Antje S. Meyer,et al.  Word length effects in object naming: The role of a response criterion , 2003 .

[51]  W. Levelt,et al.  Effects of semantic context in the naming of pictures and words , 2001, Cognition.

[52]  Janet B. Pierrehumbert,et al.  Word-specific phonetics , 2001 .

[53]  D. Plaut,et al.  The task dependence of staged versus cascaded processing: an empirical and computational study of Stroop interference in speech production. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[54]  B. Rapp,et al.  Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production. , 2000, Psychological review.

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

[56]  S. Goldinger.  Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. , 1998, Psychological review.

[57]  Jean E. Fox Tree,et al.  Pronouncing “the” as “thee” to signal problems in speaking , 1997, Cognition.

[58]  Matthew Flatt,et al.  PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers , 1993 .

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

[60]  G. Dell,et al.  Mediated and convergent lexical priming in language production: a comment on Levelt et al. (1991). , 1991, Psychological review.

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

[62]  Björn Lindblom,et al.  Explaining Phonetic Variation: A Sketch of the H&H Theory , 1990 .

[63]  W. Levelt,et al.  Speaking: From Intention to Articulation , 1990 .

[64]  Julie E. Boland,et al.  Priming in pronunciation: Beyond pattern recognition and onset latency , 1989 .

[65]  C. Fowler,et al.  Talkers' signaling of new and old. words in speech and listeners' perception and use of the distinction , 1987 .

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

[67]  G. Logan.  On the ability to inhibit thought and action , 1984 .

[68]  W. Levelt,et al.  Monitoring and self-repair in speech , 1983, Cognition.

[69]  M. Garrett.  Levels of processing in sentence production , 1980 .

[70]  James L. McClelland.  On the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systems of processes in cascade. , 1979 .

[71]  R. Golinkoff,et al.  Automatic semantic processing in a picture-word interference task. , 1975 .