Investigating the influence of semantic factors on word retrieval: Reservations, results and recommendations

References

• Abdel Rahman, R., & Melinger, A. (2009). Semantic context effects in language production: A swinging lexical network proposal and a review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(5), 713–734. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802597250
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdel Rahman, R., & Melinger, A. (2011). The dynamic microstructure of speech production: Semantic interference built on the fly. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 37(1), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021208
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdel Rahman, R., & Melinger, A. (2019). Semantic processing during language production: An update of the swinging lexical network. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(9), 1176–1192. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1599970
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alario, F.-X., & Ferrand, L. (1999). A set of 400 pictures standardized for French: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, and age of acquisition. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(3), 531–552. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200732
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alario, F.-X., Ferrand, L., Laganaro, M., New, B., Frauenfelder, U. H., & Segui, J. (2004). Predictors of picture naming speed. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(1), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195559
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Allison, P. (2012). When can you safely ignore multicollinearity? Statistical Horizons. https://statisticalhorizons.com/multicollinearity.
   Google Scholar
• Allport, D. A. (1985). Distributed memory, modular subsystems and dysphasia. In S. Newman, & R. Epstein (Eds.), Current perspecrives in dysphasia (pp. 32–60). Churchill Livingstone.
   Google Scholar
• Altarriba, J., Bauer, L. M., & Benvenuto, C. (1999). Concreteness, context availability, and imageability ratings and word associations for abstract, concrete, and emotion words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(4), 578–602. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200738
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ashcraft, M. H. (1978). Property dominance and typicality effects in property statement verification. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(2), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(78)90119-6
   Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H. (2004). Statistics in psycholinguistics: A critique of some current gold standards. Mental Lexicon Working Papers 1, 1–45.
   Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. D., Ellis, N. C., Miles, T. R., & Lewis, V. J. (1982). Developmental and acquired dyslexia: A comparison. Cognition, 11(2), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(82)90025-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbarotto, R., Capitani, E., Spinnler, H., & Trivelli, C. (1995). Slowly progressive semantic impairment with category specificity. Neurocase, 1(2), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/13554799508402355
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barry, C., Morrison, C. M., & Ellis, A. W. (1997). Naming the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures: Effects of age of acquisition, frequency, and name agreement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 50(3), 560–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/783663595
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(4), 629–654. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.11.1-4.629
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (2016). On staying grounded and avoiding quixotic dead ends. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23(4), 1122–1142. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1028-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (2020). Challenges and opportunities for grounding cognition. Journal of Cognition, 3(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.116
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W., Dutriaux, L., & Scheepers, C. (2018). Moving beyond the distinction between concrete and abstract concepts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1752), 20170144. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0144
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Battig, W. F., & Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms of verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80(3), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027577
   Google Scholar
• Belke, E. (2008). Effects of working memory load on lexical-semantic encoding in language production. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15(2), 357–363. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.2.357
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belke, E., Meyer, A. S., & Damian, M. F. (2005). Refractory effects in picture naming as assessed in a semantic blocking paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 58(4), 667–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000142
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Belke, E., & Stielow, A. (2013). Cumulative and non-cumulative semantic interference in object naming: Evidence from blocked and continuous manipulations of semantic context. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(11), 2135–2160. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.775318
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benjafield, J., & Muckenheim, R. (1989). Dates of entry and measures of imagery, concreteness, goodness, and familiarity for 1,046 words sampled from the Oxford English Dictionary. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 21(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203869
   Google Scholar
• Best, W., Schröder, A., & Herbert, R. (2006). An investigation of a relative impairment in naming non-living items: Theoretical and methodological implications. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 19(2), 96–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2005.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bi, Y., Han, Z., Shu, H., & Caramazza, A. (2005). Are verbs like inanimate objects? Brain and Language, 95(1), 28–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2005.07.029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biedermann, B., Ruh, N., Nickels, L., & Coltheart, M. (2008). Information retrieval in tip of the tongue states: New data and methodological advances. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 37(3), 171–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-007-9065-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binney, R. J., Zuckerman, B., & Reilly, J. (2016). A neuropsychological perspective on abstract word representation: From theory to treatment of acquired language disorders. Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 16(9), 1–8. doi:10.1007/s11910-016-0683-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bird, H., Franklin, S., & Howard, D. (2001). Age of acquisition and imageability ratings for a large set of words, including verbs and function words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 33(1), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195349
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bird, H., Howard, D., & Franklin, S. (2000). Why is a verb like an inanimate object? Grammatical category and semantic category deficits. Brain and Language, 72(3), 246–309. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2000.2292
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bird, H., Howard, D., & Franklin, S. (2003). Verbs and nouns: The importance of being imageable. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 16(2–3), 113–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0911-6044(02)00016-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blanken, G., Dittmann, J., & Wallesch, C.-W. (2002). Parallel or serial activation of word forms in speech production? Neurolinguistic evidence from an aphasic patient. Neuroscience Letters, 325(1), 72–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3940(02)00227-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonin, P., Chalard, M., Méot, A., & Fayol, M. (2002). The determinants of spoken and written picture naming latencies. British Journal of Psychology, 93(1), 89–114. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712602162463
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonin, P., Méot, A., Aubert, L.-F., Malardier, N., Niedenthal, P. M., & Capelle-Toczek, M.-C. (2003). Normes de concrétude, de valeur d’imagerie, de fréquence subjective et de valence émotionnelle pour 866 mots [Concreteness, imagery value, subjective frequency and emotional valence norms for 866 words]. L’année Psychologique, 103(4), 655–694. https://doi.org/10.3406/psy.2003.29658
   Google Scholar
• Bonin, P., Méot, A., Ferrand, L., & Roux, S. (2011). L’imageabilité: Normes et relations avec d’autres variables psycholinguistiques [Imageability: Norms and relationships with other psycholinguistic variables]. L’Année Psychologique, 111(2), 327–357. https://doi.org/10.4074/S0003503311002041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonin, P., Peereman, R., Malardier, N., Méot, A., & Chalard, M. (2003). A new set of 299 pictures for psycholinguistic studies: French norms for name agreement, image agreement, conceptual familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, age of acquisition, and naming latencies. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35(1), 158–167. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195507
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bonin, P., Poulin-Charronnat, B., Lukowski Duplessy, H., Bard, P., Vinter, A., Ferrand, L., & Méot, A. (2020). IMABASE: A new set of 313 colourised line drawings standardised in French for name agreement, image agreement, conceptual familiarity, age-of-acquisition, and imageability. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(11), 1862–1878. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820932822
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bormann, T. (2011). The role of lexical-semantic neighborhood in object naming: Implications for models of lexical access. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00127
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bormann, T., Kulke, F., Wallesch, C. W., & Blanken, G. (2008). Omissions and semantic errors in aphasic naming: Is there a link? Brain and Language, 104(1), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2007.02.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breedin, S. D., Saffran, E. M., & Coslett, H. B. (1994). Reversal of the concreteness effect in a patient with semantic dementia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11(6), 617–660. doi:10.1080/02643299408251987
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breedin, S. D., Saffran, E. M., & Schwartz, M. F. (1998). Semantic factors in verb retrieval: An effect of complexity. Brain and Language, 63(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1997.1923
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breining, B. L., Nozari, N., & Rapp, B. (2019). Learning in complex, multi-component cognitive systems: Different learning challenges within the same system. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 45(6), 1093–1106. https://doi.org/10.1037/XLM0000630
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, A. S. (1991). A review of the tip-of-the-tongue experience. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 204–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.204
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, R., & McNeill, D. (1966). The “tip of the tongue” phenomenon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5(4), 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(66)80040-3
   Google Scholar
• Buchanan, L., Westbury, C., & Burgess, C. (2001). Characterizing semantic space: Neighborhood effects in word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(3), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196189
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, R. A., Ralph, M. A. L., & Woollams, A. M. (2014). Capturing multidimensionality in stroke aphasia: Mapping principal behavioural components to neural structures. Brain, 137(12), 3248–3266. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awu286
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butterworth, B. (1981). Speech errors: Old data in search of new theories. Linguistics, 19(7–8), 627–662. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1981.19.7-8.627
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bürki, A., Elbuy, S., Madec, S., & Vasishth, S. (2020). What did we learn from forty years of research on semantic interference? A Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 114, 104125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104125
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capitani, E., Laiacona, M., Mahon, B., & Caramazza, A. (2003). What are the facts of semantic category-specific deficits? A critical review of the clinical evidence. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(3–6), 213–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290244000266
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caramazza, A., & Hillis, A. E. (1990). Where do semantic errors come from? Cortex, 26(1), 95–122. doi:10.1016/S0010-9452(13)80077-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caramazza, A., & Hillis, A. E. (1991). Lexical organization of nouns and verbs in the brain. Nature, 349(6312), 788–790. https://doi.org/10.1038/349788a0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caramazza, A., & Shelton, J. R. (1998). Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: The animate-inanimate distinction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892998563752
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. B., & White, M. N. (1973). Word frequency and age of acquisition as determiners of picture-naming latency. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640747308400325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Catricalà, E., della Rosa, P. A., Plebani, V., Perani, D., Garrard, P., & Cappa, S. F. (2015). Semantic feature degradation and naming performance. Evidence from neurodegenerative disorders. Brain and Language, 147, 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.05.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, L., & Rogers, T. T. (2014). Revisiting domain-general accounts of category specificity in mind and brain. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 5(3), 327–344. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1283
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, A., Taylor, K. I., Devereux, B., Randall, B., & Tyler, L. K. (2013). From perception to conception: How meaningful objects are processed over time. Cerebral Cortex, 23(1), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1983). The cost of dichotomization. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7(3), 249–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168300700301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 33(4), 497–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748108400805
   Google Scholar
• Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2012). Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability. Cognition, 125(3), 452–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COGNITION.2012.07.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cosentino, E. (2019). Artifacts and affordances. Synthese, 198(17), 4007–4026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02297-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cree, G. S., McNorgan, C., & McRae, K. (2006). Distinctive features hold a privileged status in the computation of word meaning: Implications for theories of semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychological Learning, Memory and Cognition, 32(4), 643–658. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.4.643
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cree, G. S., McRae, K., & McNorgan, C. (1999). An attractor model of lexical conceptual processing: Simulating semantic priming. Cognitive Science, 23(3), 371–414. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2303_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crutch, S. J. (2006). Qualitatively different semantic representations for abstract and concrete words: Further evidence from the semantic reading errors of deep dyslexic patients. Neurocase, 12(2), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/13554790500507172
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crutch, S. J., Connell, S., & Warrington, E. K. (2009). The different representational frameworks underpinning abstract and concrete knowledge: Evidence from odd-one-out judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(7), 1377–1390. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210802483834
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crutch, S. J., & Jackson, E. C. (2011). Contrasting graded effects of semantic similarity and association across the concreteness spectrum. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 64(7), 1388–1408. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.543285
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crutch, S. J., Ridha, B. H., & Warrington, E. K. (2006). The different frameworks underlying abstract and concrete knowledge: Evidence from a bilingual patient with a semantic refractory access dysphasia. Neurocase, 12(3), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13554790600598832
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2003). Preservation of propositional speech in a pure anomic: The importance of an abstract vocabulary. Neurocase, 9(6), 465–481. https://doi.org/10.1076/NEUR.9.6.465.29373
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2005). Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational frameworks. Brain, 128(3), 615–627. https://doi.org/10.1093/BRAIN/AWH349
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2007). Semantic priming in deep-phonological dyslexia: Contrasting effects of association and similarity upon abstract and concrete word reading. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24(6), 583–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290701577351
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2010). The differential dependence of abstract and concrete words upon associative and similarity-based information: Complementary semantic interference and facilitation effects. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 27(1), 46–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2010.491359
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, A. (1981a). Making up materials is a confounded nuisance, or: Will we able to run any psycholinguistic experiments at all in 1990? Cognition, 10(1–3), 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(81)90026-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, A. (1981b). The reliability of speech error data. In A. Cutler (Ed.), Slips of the tongue and language production (pp. 561–582). De Gruyter Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Damian, M. F., & Dumay, N. (2007). Time pressure and phonological advance planning in spoken production. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(2), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damian, M. F., & Martin, R. C. (1999). Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 25(2), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.2.345
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Deyne, S., Navarro, D. J., Perfors, A., Brysbaert, M., & Storms, G. (2019). The “Small World of Words” English word association norms for over 12,000 cue words. Behavior Research Methods, 51(3), 987–1006. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1115-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Mornay Davies, P., & Funnell, E. (2000). Semantic representation and ease of predication. Brain and Language, 73(1), 92–119. https://doi.org/10.1006/BRLN.2000.2299
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Zubicaray, G., McMahon, K., & Howard, D. (2015). Perfusion fMRI evidence for priming of shared feature-to-lexical connections during cumulative semantic interference in spoken word production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(3), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.848990
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deese, J. (1984). Thought into speech: The psychology of a language. Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Dell, G. S. (1984). Representation of serial order in speech: Evidence from the repeated phoneme effect in speech errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(2), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.10.2.222
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93(3), 283–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dell, G. S., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Saffran, E. M., & Gagnon, D. A. (1997). Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychological Review, 104(4), 801–838. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.4.801
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dell’Acqua, R., Lotto, L., & Job, R. (2000). Naming times and standardized norms for the Italian PD/DPSS set of 266 pictures: Direct comparisons with American, English, French, and Spanish published databases. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32(4), 588–615. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200832
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Devereux, B. J., Tyler, L. K., Geertzen, J., & Randall, B. (2014). The Centre for Speech, Language and the Brain (CSLB) concept property norms. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 1119–1127. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0420-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devlin, J. T., Gonnerman, L. M., Andersen, E. S., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1998). Category-specific semantic deficits in focal and widespread brain damage: A computational account. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892998563798
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, A. W., Lum, C., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (1996). On the use of regression techniques for the analysis of single case aphasic data. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 9(3), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/0911-6044(96)00008-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, A. W., & Morrison, C. M. (1998). Real age-of-acquisition effects in lexical retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 24(2), 515–523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.2.515
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, W. S., Hula, W. D., Quique, Y., & Starns, J. J. (2020). How much time do people with aphasia need to respond during picture naming? Estimating optimal response time cutoffs using a multinomial ex-Gaussian approach. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 63(2), 599–614. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-19-00255
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farah, M. J., & McClelland, J. L. (1991). A computational model of semantic memory impairment: Modality specificity and emergent category specificity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120(4), 339–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.120.4.339
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fergadiotis, G., Swiderski, A., & Hula, W. D. (2019). Predicting confrontation naming item difficulty. Aphasiology, 33(6), 689–709. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2018.1495310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferré, P., Ventura, D., Comesaña, M., & Fraga, I. (2015). The role of emotionality in the acquisition of new concrete and abstract words. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00976
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fieder, N., Krajenbrink, T., Foxe, D., Hodges, J. R., Piguet, O., & Nickels, L. (2016). Less is more-Effects of semantic neighbourhood on naming in semantic dementia (svPPA). Stem-, Spraak- En Taalpathologie, 21(Suppl.), 65–68.
   Google Scholar
• Fieder, N., Wartenburger, I., & Abdel Rahman, R. (2019). A close call: Interference from semantic neighbourhood density and similarity in language production. Memory & Cognition, 47(1), 145–168. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0856-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foygel, D., & Dell, G. S. (2000). Models of impaired lexical access in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(2), 182–216. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2716
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franklin, S., Howard, D., & Patterson, K. (1995). Abstract word anomia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12(5), 549–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643299508252007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fromkin, V. A. (1971). The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language, 47(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.2307/412187
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fromkin, V. A. (Ed.) (1973a). Slips of the tongue. Scientific American, 229(6), 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1273-110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fromkin, V. A. (1973b). Speech errors as linguistic evidence. De Gruyter Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Funnell, E., & Sheridan, J. (1992). Categories of knowledge? Unfamiliar aspects of living and nonliving things. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 9(2), 135–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643299208252056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner, H. (1973). The contribution of operativity to naming capacity in aphasic patients. Neuropsychologia, 11(2), 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(73)90010-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrard, P., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Patterson, K., Pratt, K. H., & Hodges, J. R. (2005). Semantic feature knowledge and picture naming in dementia of Alzheimer’s type: A new approach. Brain and Language, 93(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2004.08.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 113(2), 256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.113.2.256
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gianico-Relyea, J. L., & Altarriba, J. (2012). Word concreteness as a moderator of the tip-of-the-tongue effect. Psychological Record, 62(4), 763–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395834
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, W. R., & Düngelhoff, F. J. (1984). The time course of picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), 640–654. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.10.5.640
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonnerman, L. M., Andersen, E. S., Devlin, J. T., Kempler, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). Double dissociation of semantic categories in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain and Language, 57(2), 254–279. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1997.1752
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, B. (1985). Subjective frequency and the lexical decision latency function: Implications for mechanisms of lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(6), 631–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(85)90050-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grober, E., Perecman, E., Kellar, L., & Brown, J. (1980). Lexical knowledge in anterior and posterior aphasics. Topics in Catalysis, 10(2), 318–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(80)90059-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grondin, R., Lupker, S. J., & McRae, K. (2009). Shared features dominate semantic richness effects for concrete concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.09.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossman, M. (1981). A bird is a bird is a bird: Making reference within and without superordinate categories. Brain and Language, 12(2), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(81)90022-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossman, M., Robinson, K., Biassou, N., White-Devine, T., & D’Esposito, M. (1998). Semantic memory in Alzheimer’s disease: Representativeness, ontologic category, and material. Neuropsychology, 12(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.12.1.34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Günther, F., Rinaldi, L., & Marelli, M. (2019). Vector-space models of semantic representation from a cognitive perspective: A discussion of common misconceptions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(6), 1006–1033. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619861372
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gvion, A., & Friedmann, N. (2013). A selective deficit in imageable concepts: A window to the organization of the conceptual system. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00226
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Halai, A. D., Woollams, A. M., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2017). Using principal component analysis to capture individual differences within a unified neuropsychological model of chronic post-stroke aphasia: Revealing the unique neural correlates of speech fluency, phonology and semantics. Cortex, 86, 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.04.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hameau, S., Biedermann, B., Fieder, N., & Nickels, L. (2019). Investigation of the effects of semantic neighbours in aphasia: A facilitated naming study. Aphasiology, 34(7), 840–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2019.1652241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hameau, S., Biedermann, B., Robidoux, S., & Nickels, L. (1985). Effects of phonological neighbourhood density and frequency in picture naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 120(104248), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2021.104248
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hameau, S., Nickels, L., & Biedermann, B. (2019). Effects of semantic neighbourhood density on spoken word production. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(12), 2752–2775. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819859850
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, J., Berndt, R. S., & Caramazza, A. (1985). Category-specific naming deficit following cerebral infarction. Nature, 316(6027), 439–440. https://doi.org/10.1038/316439A0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazeltine, E., & Mordkoff, J. T. (2014). Resolved but not forgotten: Stroop conflict dredges up the past. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01327
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillis, A. E., & Caramazza, A. (1991). Category-specific naming and comprehension impairment: A double dissociation. Brain, 114(5), 2081–2094. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/114.5.2081
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillis, A. E., & Caramazza, A. (1995). The compositionality of lexical semantic representations: Clues from semantic errors in object naming. Memory, 3(3-4), 333–358. doi:10.1080/09658219508253156
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodges, J. R., Bozeat, S., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Patterson, K., & Spatt, J. (2000). The role of conceptual knowledge in object use: Evidence from semantic dementia. Brain, 123(9), 1913–1925. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.9.1913
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodgson, C., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2008). Mimicking aphasic semantic errors in normal speech production: Evidence from a novel experimental paradigm. Brain and Language, 104(1), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2007.03.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes, S. J., & Ellis, A. W. (2006). Age of acquisition and typicality effects in three object processing tasks. Visual Cognition, 13(7–8), 884–910. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280544000093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hough, M. S., & Pierce, R. S. (1989). Contextual influences on category concept generation in aphasia. In T. Prescott (Ed.), Clinical Aphasiology (Vol. 18, pp. 507–520). College-Hill Presss. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038908249022
   Google Scholar
• Howard, D., Best, W., Bruce, C., & Gatehouse, C. (1995). Operativity and animacy effects in aphasic naming. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 30(3), 286–302. https://doi.org/10.3109/13682829509021443
   Google Scholar
• Howard, D., & Gatehouse, C. (2006). Distinguishing semantic and lexical word retrieval deficits in people with aphasia. Aphasiology, 20(9–11), 921–950. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030600782679
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard, D., Nickels, L., Coltheart, M., & Cole-Virtue, J. (2006). Cumulative semantic inhibition in picture naming: Experimental and computational studies. Cognition, 100(3), 464–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.02.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humphreys, G. W., Riddoch, M. J., & Quinlan, P. T. (1988). Cascade processes in picture identification. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5(1), 67–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643298808252927
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear models. Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, C. J., Paivio, A., & Clark, J. M. (1996). Cognitive components of picture naming. Psychological Bulletin, 120(1), 113–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.120.1.113
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, G. V. (1985). Deep dyslexia, imageability, and ease of predication. Brain and Language, 24(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(85)90094-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juhasz, B. J., & Yap, M. J. (2013). Sensory experience ratings for over 5,000 mono- and disyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 45(1), 160–168. https://doi.org/10.3758/S13428-012-0242-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiefer, M., & Pulvermüller, F. (2012). Conceptual representations in mind and brain: Theoretical developments, current evidence and future directions. Cortex, 48(7), 805–825. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CORTEX.2011.04.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinoshita, S., de Wit, B., & Norris, D. (2017). The magic of words reconsidered: Investigating the automaticity of reading color-neutral words in the Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 43(3), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000311
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiran, S., Ntourou, K., & Eubank, M. (2007). The effect of typicality on online category verification of inanimate category exemplars in aphasia. Aphasiology, 21(9), 844–866. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030600743564
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiran, S., & Thompson, C. K. (2003). The role of semantic complexity in treatment of naming deficits. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46(4), 773–787. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2003/061)
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kittredge, A. K., Dell, G. S., & Schwartz, M. F. (2007a). Omissions in aphasic picture naming: Late age-of-acquisition is the culprit, not low semantic density. Brain and Language, 103(1–2), 132–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2007.07.081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kittredge, A. K., Dell, G. S., & Schwartz, M. F. (2007b). Omissions in aphasic picture naming: Late age-of- acquisition is the culprit, as well as low semantic density. Poster presented at the 45th Meeting of the Academy of Aphasia, Washington, DC, October 21–23.
   Google Scholar
• Kohn, S. E., & Smith, K. L. (1995). Serial effects of phonemic planning during word production. Aphasiology, 9(3), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687039508248196
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kousta, S. T., Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Andrews, M., & del Campo, E. (2011). The representation of abstract words: Why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(1), 14–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021446
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kousta, S. T., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2009). Emotion words, regardless of polarity, have a processing advantage over neutral words. Cognition, 112(3), 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COGNITION.2009.06.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuperman, V., Estes, Z., Brysbaert, M., & Warriner, A. B. (2014). Emotion and language: Valence and arousal affect word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 1065–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0035669
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Heij, W. (1988). Components of Stroop-like interference in picture naming. Memory & Cognition, 16(5), 400–410. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214220
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lachman, R., Shaffer, J. P., & Hennrikus, D. (1974). Language and cognition: Effects of stimulus codability, name-word frequency, and age of acquisition on lexical reaction time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(6), 613–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80049-6
   Google Scholar
• Laiacona, M., Barbarotto, R., & Capitani, E. (2006). Human evolution and the brain representation of semantic knowledge: Is there a role for sex differences? Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(2), 158–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EVOLHUMBEHAV.2005.08.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laiacona, M., & Capitani, E. (2001). A case of prevailing deficit of nonliving categories or a case of prevailing sparing of living categories? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 18(1), 39–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290042000035
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laiacona, M., Luzzatti, C., Zonca, G., Guarnaschelli, C., & Capitani, E. (2001). Lexical and semantic factors influencing picture naming in aphasia. Brain and Cognition, 46(1–2), 184–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2626(01)80061-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laisney, M., Giffard, B., Belliard, S., de la Sayette, V., Desgranges, B., & Eustache, F. (2011). When the zebra loses its stripes: Semantic priming in early Alzheimer’s disease and semantic dementia. Cortex, 47(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2009.11.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lampe, L. F., Fieder, N., Krajenbrink, T., & Nickels, L. (2017). Semantische Nachbarschaft in der Wortproduktion bei Aphasie [Semantic neighbourhood in word production in aphasia]. In A. Adelt, Ö Yetim, C. Otto, & T. Fritzsche (Eds.), Spektrum Patholinguistik - Panorama Patholinguistik: Sprachwissenschaft trifft Sprachtherapie (Vol. 10, pp. 103–114). Universitätsverlag Potsdam. https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/frontdoor/index/index/docId/39701
   Google Scholar
• Lampe, L. F., Hameau, S., Fieder, N., & Nickels, L. (2021). Effects of semantic variables on word production in aphasia. Cortex, 141, 363–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2021.02.020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lampe, L. F., Hameau, S., & Nickels, L. (2022a). Are they really stronger? Comparing effects of semantic variables in speeded deadline and standard picture naming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218221103356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lampe, L. F., Hameau, S., & Nickels, L. (2022b). Semantic variables both help and hinder word production: Behavioral evidence from picture naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 48(1), 72–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001050
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2–3), 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laws, K. R. (2005). Illusions of normality”: A methodological critique of category-specific naming. Cortex, 41(6), 842–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70303-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. J. M. (1992). Accessing words in speech production: Stages, processes and representations. Cognition, 42(1–3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90038-J
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. J. M. (2001). Spoken word production: A theory of lexical access. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(23), 13464–13471. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.231459498
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99001776
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. J. M., Schriefers, H., Vorberg, D., Meyer, A. S., Pechmann, T., & Havinga, J. (1991). The time course of lexical access in speech production: A study of picture naming. Psychological Review, 98(1), 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.1.122
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Llorens, A., Trébuchon, A., Riès, S., Liégeois-Chauvel, C., & Alario, F. X. (2014). How familiarization and repetition modulate the picture naming network. Brain and Language, 133, 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.03.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloyd-Jones, T. J., & Nettlemill, M. (2007). Sources of error in picture naming under time pressure. Memory & Cognition, 35(4), 816–836. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193317
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28(2), 203–208. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204766
   Google Scholar
• Lupker, S. J. (1979). The semantic nature of response competition in the picture-word interference task. Memory & Cognition, 7(6), 485–495. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luzzatti, C., Raggi, R., Zonca, G., Pistarini, C., Contardi, A., & Pinna, G. D. (2002). Verb-noun double dissociation in aphasic lexical impairments: The role of word frequency and imageability. Brain and Language, 81(1–3), 432–444. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2536
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyalka, O., Howard, D., Morris, J., & Nickels, L. (2020). Does producing semantically related words aid word retrieval in people with aphasia? Aphasiology, 34(2), 158–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2018.1562149
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maclay, H., & Osgood, C. E. (1959). Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. WORD, 15(1), 19–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1959.11659682
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macoir, J. (2009). Is a plum a memory problem? Longitudinal study of the reversal of concreteness effect in a patient with semantic dementia. Neuropsychologia, 47(2), 518–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA.2008.10.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2009). Concepts and categories: A cognitive neuropsychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163532
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahon, B. Z., Costa, A., Peterson, R., Vargas, K. A., & Caramazza, A. (2007). Lexical selection is not by competition: A reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(3), 503–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.503
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2017). Explaining human performance in psycholinguistic tasks with models of semantic similarity based on prediction and counting: A review and empirical validation. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall, J., Pring, T., Chiat, S., & Robson, J. (1996). Calling a salad a federation: An investigation of semantic jargon. Part 1—Nouns. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 9(4), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0911-6044(97)82796-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, N., Weisberg, R. W., & Saffran, E. M. (1989). Variables influencing the occurrence of naming errors: Implications for models of lexical retrieval. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(4), 462–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90022-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, C., & Nickels, L. (2021). Emotion word processing in aphasia [Manuscript in preparation].
   Google Scholar
• Mason-Baughman, M. B. (2009). Choosing among related foils in aphasia: The role of common and distinctive semantic features [Doctoral dissertation], Kent State University.
   Google Scholar
• Mason-Baughman, M. B. (2010). The role of common and distinctive features in semantic knowledge of persons with aphasia: A pilot study. PSHA Journal, 30–40.
   Google Scholar
• Mason-Baughman, M. B., & Wallace, S. E. (2013a). Semantic feature knowledge in persons with aphasia: The role of commonality, distinctiveness, and importance. Aphasiology, 27(3), 364–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2012.730602
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason-Baughman, M. B., & Wallace, S. E. (2013b). The role of commonality, distinctiveness and importance of semantic features in persons with aphasia. Brain Injury, 27(4), 399–407. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2012.750748
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masson, M. E. J. (1995). A distributed memory model of semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.21.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mätzig, S., Druks, J., Masterson, J., & Vigliocco, G. (2009). Noun and verb differences in picture naming: Past studies and new evidence. Cortex, 45(6), 738–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2008.10.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37(4), 547–559. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192726
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Westmacott, R., & de Sa, V. R. (1999). Further evidence for feature correlations in semantic memory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53(4), 360–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087323
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McRae, K., de Sa, V. R., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(2), 99–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.2.99
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melinger, A., & Abdel Rahman, R. (2013). Lexical selection is competitive: Evidence from indirectly activated semantic associates during picture naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(2), 348–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028941
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meringer, R., & Mayer, C. (1895). Versprechen und Verlesen: Eine psychologisch-linguistische Studie [To misspeak and misread: A psychological-linguistic study]. Göschen.
   Google Scholar
• Meteyard, L., Cuadrado, S. R., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2012). Coming of age: A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex, 48(7), 788–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CORTEX.2010.11.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. 1st International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Mills, L., Kinoshita, S., & Norris, D. (2019). No negative priming effect in the manual Stroop task. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(1764), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01764
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miozzo, M., Pulvermüller, F., & Hauk, O. (2015). Early parallel activation of semantics and phonology in picture naming: Evidence from a multiple linear regression MEG study. Cerebral Cortex, 25(10), 3343–3355. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu137
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirman, D. (2011). Effects of near and distant semantic neighbors on word production. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 11(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-010-0009-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirman, D., & Graziano, K. M. (2013). The neural basis of inhibitory effects of semantic and phonological neighbors in spoken word production. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(9), 1504–1516. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00408
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirman, D., Kittredge, A. K., & Dell, G. S. (2010). Effects of near and distant phonological neighbors on picture naming. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 32, 1447–1452.
   Google Scholar
• Mirman, D., & Magnuson, J. S. (2006). The impact of semantic neighborhood density on semantic access measures of semantic neighborhood density. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 1823–1828.
   Google Scholar
• Mirman, D., & Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Attractor dynamics and semantic neighborhood density: Processing is slowed by near neighbors and speeded by distant neighbors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.65
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirman, D., Strauss, T. J., Brecher, A., Walker, G. M., Sobel, P., Dell, G. S., & Schwartz, M. F. (2010). A large, searchable, web-based database of aphasic performance on picture naming and other tests of cognitive function. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 27(6), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2011.574112
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirman, D., Zhang, Y., Wang, Z., Coslett, H. B., & Schwartz, M. F. (2015). The ins and outs of meaning: Behavioral and neuroanatomical dissociation of semantically-driven word retrieval and multimodal semantic recognition in aphasia. Neuropsychologia, 76, 208–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.02.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morelli, C. A., Altmann, L. J. P., Kendall, D., Fischler, I., & Heilman, K. M. (2011). Effects of semantic elaboration and typicality on picture naming in Alzheimer disease. Journal of Communication Disorders, 44(4), 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCOMDIS.2011.01.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison, C. M. (2003). Interpret with caution: Multicollinearity in multiple regression of cognitive data. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 97(1), 80–82. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2003.97.1.80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moses, M. S., Nickels, L., & Sheard, C. (2004). I’m sitting here feeling aphasic!” A study of recurrent perseverative errors elicited in unimpaired speakers. Brain and Language, 89(1), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00364-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moss, H. E., Tyler, L. K., Durrant-Peatfield, M., & Bunn, E. M. (1998). Two eyes of a see-through’: Impaired and intact semantic knowledge in a case of selective deficit for living things. Neurocase, 4(4–5), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1093/neucas/4.4.291
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 402–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195588
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Newcombe, F. B., Oldfield, R. C., & Wingfield, A. (1965). Object-naming by dysphasic patients. Nature, 207(5002), 1217–1218. https://doi.org/10.1038/2071217a0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newton, C., Thornley, H., & Bruce, C. (2020). The influence of emotional valence on word recognition in people with aphasia. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(8), 1064–1072. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2020.1713385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nickels, L. (1995). Getting it right? Using aphasic naming errors to evaluate theoretical models of spoken word production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(1), 13–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969508407086
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nickels, L. (1997). Spoken word production and its breakdown in aphasia. Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nickels, L., & Howard, D. (1994). A frequent occurrence? Factors affecting the production of semantic errors in aphasic naming. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11(3), 289–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643299408251977
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nickels, L., & Howard, D. (1995). Aphasic naming: What matters? Neuropsychologia, 33(10), 1281–1303. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(95)00102-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nickels, L., Howard, D., & Best, W. (2011). On the use of different methodologies in cognitive neuropsychology: Drink deep and from several sources. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 28(7), 475–485. doi:10.1080/02643294.2012.672406
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nishimoto, T., Ueda, T., Miyawaki, K., Une, Y., & Takahashi, M. (2012). The role of imagery-related properties in picture naming: A newly standardized set of 360 pictures for Japanese. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 934–945. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0176-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, D. (2006). The Bayesian reader: Explaining word recognition as an optimal Bayesian decision process. Psychological Review, 113(2), 327–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.327
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, D., & Kinoshita, S. (2008). Perception as evidence accumulation and Bayesian inference: Insights from masked priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(3), 434–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012799
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nozari, N., & Pinet, S. (2020). A critical review of the behavioral, neuroimaging, and electrophysiological studies of co-activation of representations during word production. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 53, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2019.100875
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obermeyer, J., Reinert, L., Kamen, R., Pritchard, D., Park, H., & Martin, N. (2022). Effect of working memory load and typicality on semantic processing in aphasia. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 31(1), 12–29. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJSLP-20-00283
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oldfield, R. C., & Wingfield, A. (1964). The time it takes to name an object. Nature, 202(4936), 1031–1032. https://doi.org/10.1038/2021031a0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oldfield, R. C., & Wingfield, A. (1965). Response latencies in naming objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17(4), 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470216508416445
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oppenheim, G. M., Dell, G. S., & Schwartz, M. F. (2010). The dark side of incremental learning: A model of cumulative semantic interference during lexical access in speech production. Cognition, 114(2), 227–252. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.09.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oppenheim, G., & Nozari, N. (2021). Behavioral interference or facilitation does not distinguish between competitive and noncompetitive accounts of lexical selection in word production. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 43). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/48z6c6gk.
   Google Scholar
• Paivio, A. (1969). Mental imagery in associative learning and memory. Psychological Review, 76(3), 241–263. https://doi.org/10.1037/H0027272
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 45(3), 255–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084295
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paivio, A. (2007). Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical approach. Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Paivio, A. (2010). Dual coding theory and the mental lexicon. The Mental Lexicon, 5(2), 205–230. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.5.2.04pai
   Google Scholar
• Paivio, A. (2013). Dual coding theory, word abstractness, and emotion: A critical review of Kousta et al. (2011). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(1), 282–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(1, Pt.2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025327
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Patterson, K., Nestor, P. J., & Rogers, T. T. (2007). Where do you know what you know? The representation of semantic knowledge in the human brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(12), 976–987. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2277
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington, J., Socher, R., & Manning, C. (2014). GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 1532–1543. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/D14-1162.
   Google Scholar
• Perret, C., & Bonin, P. (2019). Which variables should be controlled for to investigate picture naming in adults? A Bayesian meta-analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 51(6), 2533–2545. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1100-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perret, C., & Laganaro, M. (2013). Why are written picture naming latencies (not) longer than spoken naming? Reading and Writing, 26(2), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9365-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pexman, P. M. (2012). Meaning-based influences on visual word recognition. In J. S. Adelman (Ed.), Visual word recognition: Meaning and context, individuals and development (pp. 24–43). Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pexman, P. M. (2020). How does meaning come to mind? Four broad principles of semantic processing. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(4), 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/CEP0000235
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pexman, P. M., Hargreaves, I. S., Siakaluk, P. D., Bodner, G. E., & Pope, J. (2008). There are many ways to be rich: Effects of three measures of semantic richness on visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15(1), 161–167. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.1.161
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pexman, P. M., Muraki, E., Sidhu, D. M., Siakaluk, P. D., & Yap, M. J. (2019). Quantifying sensorimotor experience: Body–object interaction ratings for more than 9,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 51(2), 453–466. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1171-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plaut, D. C. (1996). Relearning after damage in connectionist networks: Toward a theory of rehabilitation. Brain and Language, 52(1), 25–82. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1996.0004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plaut, D. C., & Shallice, T. (1991). Effects of word abstractness in a connectionist model of deep dyslexia. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 73–78.
   Google Scholar
• Plaut, D. C., & Shallice, T. (1993). Deep dyslexia: A case study of connectionist neuropsychology. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 10(5), 377–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643299308253469
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ponari, M., Norbury, C. F., & Vigliocco, G. (2018). Acquisition of abstract concepts is influenced by emotional valence. Developmental Science, 21(e12549), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12549
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ponari, M., Norbury, C. F., & Vigliocco, G. (2020). The role of emotional valence in learning novel abstract concepts. Developmental Psychology, 56(10), 1855–1865. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001091
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabovsky, M., & McRae, K. (2014). Simulating the N400 ERP component as semantic network error: Insights from a feature-based connectionist attractor model of word meaning. Cognition, 132(1), 68–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabovsky, M., Schad, D. J., & Abdel Rahman, R. (2016). Language production is facilitated by semantic richness but inhibited by semantic density: Evidence from picture naming. Cognition, 146, 240–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabovsky, M., Schad, D. J., & Abdel Rahman, R. (2021). Semantic richness and density effects on language production: Electrophysiological and behavioral evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 47(3), 508–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000940
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Randall, B., Moss, H. E., Rodd, J. M., Greer, M., & Tyler, L. K. (2004). Distinctiveness and correlation in conceptual structure: Behavioral and computational studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 393–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.393
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rapp, B., & Goldrick, M. (2000). Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production. Psychological Review, 107(3), 460. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.107.3.460
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Recchia, G., & Jones, M. N. (2012). The semantic richness of abstract concepts. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00315
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reilly, J., Peelle, J. E., & Grossman, M. (2007). A unitary semantics account of reverse concreteness effects in semantic dementia. Brain and Language, 1(103), 86–87. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2007.07.057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rico Duarte, L., & Robert, C. (2014). Semantic richness influences naming pictures in old age and in Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 31, 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2014.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rico Duarte, L., Marquié, L., Marquié, J. C., Terrier, P., & Ousset, P. J. (2009). Analyzing feature distinctiveness in the processing of living and non-living concepts in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain and Cognition, 71(2), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.04.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riddoch, M. J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1987). Visual object processing in optic aphasia: A case of semantic access agnosia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 4(2), 131–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643298708252038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riley, E. A., & Thompson, C. K. (2010). Semantic typicality effects in acquired dyslexia: Evidence for semantic impairment in deep dyslexia. Aphasiology, 24(6–8), 802–813. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030903422486
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rofes, A., Zakariás, L., Ceder, K., Lind, M., Johansson, M. B., de Aguiar, V., Bjekić, J., Fyndanis, V., Gavarró, A., Simonsen, H. G., Sacristán, C. H., Kambanaros, M., Kraljević, J. K., Martínez-Ferreiro, S., Mavis, İ, Orellana, C. M., Sör, I., Lukács, Á, Tunçer, M., … Howard, D. (2018). Imageability ratings across languages. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1187–1197. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0936-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, T. T., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Garrard, P., Bozeat, S., McClelland, J. L., Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. (2004). Structure and deterioration of semantic memory: A neuropsychological and computational investigation. Psychological Review, 111(1), 205–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, T. T., Patterson, K., Jefferies, E., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2015). Disorders of representation and control in semantic cognition: Effects of familiarity, typicality, and specificity. Neuropsychologia, 76, 220–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.04.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogerson, P. (2011). Statistical methods for geography. SAGE Publications, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209953
   Google Scholar
• Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4(3), 328–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosch, E. H., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose, S. B., & Abdel Rahman, R. (2017). Semantic similarity promotes interference in the continuous naming paradigm: Behavioural and electrophysiological evidence. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1212081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose, S. B., Aristei, S., Melinger, A., & Abdel Rahman, R. (2019). The closer they are, the more they interfere: Semantic similarity of word distractors increases competition in language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(4), 753–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000592
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossiter, C., & Best, W. (2013). “Penguins don’t fly”: An investigation into the effect of typicality on picture naming in people with aphasia. Aphasiology, 27(7), 784–798. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2012.751579
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandberg, C., Sebastian, R., & Kiran, S. (2012). Typicality mediates performance during category verification in both ad-hoc and well-defined categories. Journal of Communication Disorders, 45(2), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2011.12.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sartori, G., & Job, R. (1988). The oyster with four legs: A neuropsychological study on the interaction of visual and semantic information. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5(1), 105–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643298808252928
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sartori, G., & Lombardi, L. (2004). Semantic relevance and semantic disorders. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(3), 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892904322926773
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Shoben, E. J. (1983). Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(1), 82–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.9.1.82
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shallice, T. (1988). From neuropsychology to mental structure. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511526817
   Google Scholar
• Shallice, T. (1991). Précis of from neuropsychology to mental structure. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(3), 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0007059X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1983). Sublexical units and suprasegmental structure in speech production planning. In P. F. MacNeilage (Ed.), The production of speech (pp. 109–136). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8202-7_6
   Google Scholar
• Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1987). The role of word-onset consonants in speech production planning: New evidence from speech error patterns. In E. Keller, & M. Gopnik (Eds.), Motor and sensory processes of language (pp. 17–51). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Sirigu, A., Duhamel, J. R., & Poncet, M. (1991). The role of sensorimotor experience in object recognition: A case of multimodal agnosia. Brain, 114(6), 2555–2573. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/114.6.2555
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(2), 174–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.174
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Spalek, K., Damian, M. F., & Bölte, J. (2013). Is lexical selection in spoken word production competitive? Introduction to the special issue on lexical competition in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(5), 597–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.718088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Davis, C. J. (2006). The Bristol norms for age of acquisition, imageability, and familiarity. Behavior Research Methods, 38(4), 598–605. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193891
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanczak, L., Waters, G., & Caplan, D. (2006). Typicality-based learning and generalisation in aphasia: Two case studies of anomia treatment. Aphasiology, 20(2–4), 374–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030600587631
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Starreveld, P. A., & La Heij, W. (2017). Picture-word interference is a Stroop effect: A theoretical analysis and new empirical findings. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 24(3), 721–733. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1167-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stemberger, J. P. (1982). The nature of segments in the lexicon: Evidence from speech errors. Lingua, 56(3–4), 235–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(82)90012-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stemberger, J. P. (1992). The reliability and replicability of naturalistic speech error data. In B. J. Baars (Ed.), Experimental slips and human error (pp. 195–215). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1164-3_8
   Google Scholar
• Stemberger, J. P., & Treiman, R. (1986). The internal structure of word-initial consonant clusters. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(2), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(86)90027-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, K. I., Devereux, B. J., Acres, K., Randall, B., & Tyler, L. K. (2012). Contrasting effects of feature-based statistics on the categorisation and basic-level identification of visual objects. Cognition, 122(3), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.11.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, K. I., Moss, H., Randall, B., & Tyler, L. K. (2004). The interplay between distinctiveness and intercorrelation in the automatic activation of word meaning. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, 9, 109.
   Google Scholar
• Toglia, M. P., & Battig, W. F. (1978). Handbook of semantic word norms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler, L. K., & Moss, H. E. (2001). Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(6), 244–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01651-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler, L. K., Moss, H. E., Durrant-Peatfield, M. R., & Levy, J. P. (2000). Conceptual structure and the structure of concepts: A distributed account of category-specific deficits. Brain and Language, 75(2), 195–231. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2000.2353
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valente, A., Bürki, A., & Laganaro, M. (2014). ERP correlates of word production predictors in picture naming: A trial by trial multiple regression analysis from stimulus onset to response. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2014.00390
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vatcheva, K. P., Lee, M., McCormick, J. B., & Rahbar, M. H. (2016). Multicollinearity in regression analyses conducted in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology (Sunnyvale), 6(2), 227. https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-1165.1000227
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vieth, H. E., McMahon, K. L., & de Zubicaray, G. I. (2014). The roles of shared vs. distinctive conceptual features in lexical access. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D. P. (2007). Semantic representation. In M. G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 195–214). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198568971.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Druks, J., Barber, H., & Cappa, S. F. (2011). Nouns and verbs in the brain: A review of behavioural, electrophysiological, neuropsychological and imaging studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(3), 407–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUBIOREV.2010.04.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Lewis, W., & Garrett, M. F. (2004). Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48(4), 422–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.09.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villani, C., Lugli, L., Liuzza, M. T., & Borghi, A. M. (2019). Varieties of abstract concepts and their multiple dimensions. Language and Cognition, 11(3), 403–430. https://doi.org/10.1017/LANGCOG.2019.23
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinson, D. P., Andrews, M., & Vigliocco, G. (2013). Giving words meaning. In M. Goldrick, V. S. Ferreira, & M. Miozzo (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language production (pp. 134–151). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199735471.013.006
   Google Scholar
• Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2008). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of objects and events. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.183
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vitevitch, M. S. (2002). The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(4), 735–747. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.735
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vitkovitch, M., & Humphreys, G. W. (1991). Perseverant responding in speeded naming of pictures: It’s in the links. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(4), 664–680. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.17.4.664
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vitkovitch, M., Humphreys, G. W., & Lloyd-Jones, T. J. (1993). On naming a giraffe a zebra: Picture naming errors across different object categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(2), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.2.243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace, S. E., & Mason-Baughman, M. B. (2012). Relationship between distinctive feature knowledge and word retrieval abilities in people with aphasia. Aphasiology, 26(10), 1278–1297. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2012.702886
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warriner, A. B., Kuperman, V., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1191–1207. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0314-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warrington, E. K. (1981). Concrete word dyslexia. British Journal of Psychology, 72(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1981.tb02175.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warrington, E. K., & Shallice, T. (1984). Category specific semantic impairments. Brain, 107(3), 829–853. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/107.3.829
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woollams, A. M. (2012). Apples are not the only fruit: The effects of concept typicality on semantic representation in the anterior temporal lobe. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00085
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woollams, A. M., Cooper-Pye, E., Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. (2008). Anomia: A doubly typical signature of semantic dementia. Neuropsychologia, 46(10), 2503–2514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.04.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yap, M. J., Pexman, P. M., Wellsby, M., Hargreaves, I. S., & Huff, M. J. (2012). An abundance of riches: Cross-task comparisons of semantic richness effects in visual word recognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00072
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yap, M. J., & Seow, C. S. (2014). The influence of emotion on lexical processing: Insights from RT distributional analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21(2), 526–533. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0525-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar