Picture-Induced Semantic Interference Reflects Lexical Competition during Object Naming

With a picture–picture experiment, we contrasted competitive and non-competitive models of lexical selection during language production. Participants produced novel noun–noun compounds in response to two adjacently displayed objects that were categorically related or unrelated (e.g., depicted objects: apple and cherry; naming response: “apple–cherry”). We observed semantic interference, with slower compound naming for related relative to unrelated pictures, very similar to interference effects produced by semantically related context words in picture–word-interference paradigms. This finding suggests that previous failures to observe reliable interference induced by context pictures may be due to the weakness of lexical activation and competition induced by pictures, relative to words. The production of both picture names within one integrated compound word clearly enhances lexical activation, resulting in measurable interference effects. We interpret this interference as resulting from lexical competition, because the alternative interpretation, in terms of response-exclusion from the articulatory buffer, does not apply to pictures, even when they are named

Concurrent semantic priming and lexical interference for close semantic relations in blocked-cyclic picture naming:Electrophysiological signatures

In the present study, we employed event-related brain potentials to investigate the effects of semantic similarity on different planning stages during language production. We manipulated semantic similarity by controlling feature overlap within taxonomical hierarchies. In a blocked-cyclic naming task, participants named pictures in repeated cycles, blocked in semantically close, distant, or unrelated conditions. Only closely related items, but not distantly related items, induced semantic blocking effects. In the first presentation cycle, naming was facilitated, and amplitude modulations in the N1 component around 140–180 ms post-stimulus onset predicted this behavioral facilitation. In contrast, in later cycles, naming was delayed, and a negative-going posterior amplitude modulation around 250–350 ms post-stimulus onset predicted this interference. These findings indicate easier object recognition or identification underlying initial facilitation and increased difficulties during lexical selection. The N1 modulation was reduced but persisted in later cycles in which interference dominated, and the posterior negativity was also present in cycle 1 in which facilitation dominated, demonstrating concurrent effects of conceptual priming and lexical interference in all naming cycles. Our assumptions about the functional role these two opposing forces play in producing semantic context effects are further supported by the finding that the joint modulation of these two ERPs on naming latency exclusively emerged when naming closely related, but not unrelated items. The current findings demonstrate that close relations, but not distant taxonomic relations, induce stronger semantic blocking effects, and that temporally overlapping electrophysiological signatures reflect a trade-off between facilitatory priming and interfering lexical competition.Peer Reviewe

Now you see it . . . and now again

Semantic interference effects in the picture–word interference (PWI) paradigm have long been assumed to reflect competitive mechanisms during lexical selection, a core component of the speech production system. However, recent observations of facilitative effects have cast doubt on the usefulness of the paradigm for investigating lexicalization, and on the existence of lexical competition in general. An alternative proposal suggests that lexical selection is not by competition, and that interference effects reflect articulatory processes outside the lexical system. Here, we contrast these theoretical alternatives with semantic distractor effects in the PWI paradigm. In two tasks, pictures were either overtly named or the names were manually classified. Interference effects of comparable magnitude were observed in both response modalities, regardless of whether the names were articulated or not. This finding supports lexical competition models and suggests that the articulators are not the source of interference in the PWI paradigm. Supplemental materials for this article may be downloaded from http://pbr.psychonomic-journals.org/content/supplemental.Peer Reviewe

Articulation Artifacts During Overt Language Production in Event-Related Brain Potentials: Description and Correction

© 2016, Springer Science+Business Media New York. Overt articulation produces strong artifacts in the electroencephalogram and in event-related potentials (ERPs), posing a serious problem for investigating language production with these variables. Here we describe the properties of articulation-related artifacts and propose a novel correction procedure. Experiment 1 co-recorded ERPs and trajectories of the articulators with an electromagnetic articulograph from a single participant. The generalization of the findings from the single participant to standard picture naming was investigated in Experiment 2. Both experiments provided evidence that articulation-induced artifacts may start up to 300 ms or more prior to voice onset or voice key onsetâdepending on the specific measure; they are highly similar in topography across many different phoneme patterns and differ mainly in their time course and amplitude. ERPs were separated from articulation-related artifacts with residue iteration decomposition (RIDE). After obtaining the artifact-free ERPs, their correlations with the articulatory trajectories dropped near to zero. Artifact removal with independent component analysis was less successful; while correlations with the articulatory movements remained substantial, early components prior to voice onset were attenuated in reconstructed ERPs. These findings offer new insights into the nature of articulation artifacts; together with RIDE as method for artifact removal the present report offers a fresh perspective for ERP studies requiring overt articulation.Link_to_subscribed_fulltex

Concurrent semantic priming and lexical interference for close semantic relations in blocked-cyclic picture naming: Electrophysiological signatures

In the present study, we employed event-related brain potentials to investigate the effects of semantic similarity on different planning stages during language production. We manipulated semantic similarity by controlling feature overlap within taxonomical hierarchies. In a blocked-cyclic naming task, participants named pictures in repeated cycles, blocked in semantically close, distant, or unrelated conditions. Only closely related items, but not distantly related items, induced semantic blocking effects. In the first presentation cycle, naming was facilitated, and amplitude modulations in the N1 component around 140–180 ms post-stimulus onset predicted this behavioral facilitation. In contrast, in later cycles, naming was delayed, and a negative-going posterior amplitude modulation around 250–350 ms post-stimulus onset predicted this interference. These findings indicate easier object recognition or identification underlying initial facilitation and increased difficulties during lexical selection. The N1 modulation was reduced but persisted in later cycles in which interference dominated, and the posterior negativity was also present in cycle 1 in which facilitation dominated, demonstrating concurrent effects of conceptual priming and lexical interference in all naming cycles. Our assumptions about the functional role these two opposing forces play in producing semantic context effects are further supported by the finding that the joint modulation of these two ERPs on naming latency exclusively emerged when naming closely related, but not unrelated items. The current findings demonstrate that close relations, but not distant taxonomic relations, induce stronger semantic blocking effects, and that temporally overlapping electrophysiological signatures reflect a trade-off between facilitatory priming and interfering lexical competition.Peer Reviewe