Picture–word interference reveals inhibitory effects of syllable frequency on lexical selection

REFERENCES

• Abdel Rahman, R., & Melinger, A. (2007). When bees hamper the production of honey: Lexical interference from associates in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 604–614. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.604
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aichert, I., & Ziegler, W. (2004). Syllable frequency and syllable structure in apraxia of speech. Brain and Language, 88, 148–159. doi:10.1080/02687030701820584 doi: 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00296-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical data base [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
   Google Scholar
• Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., . . . Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445–459. Retrieved from http://elexicon.wustl.edu/
   Google Scholar
• Carreiras, M., & Perea, M. (2004). Naming pseudowords in Spanish: Effects of syllable frequency. Brain and Language, 90, 393–400. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2003.12.003 doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2003.12.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cholin, J., Dell, G. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2011). Planning and articulation in incremental word production: Syllable-frequency effects in English. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 109–122. doi:10.1037/a0021322
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cholin, J., Levelt, W. J. M., & Schiller, N. (2006). Effects of syllable frequency in speech production. Cognition, 99, 205–235. doi:10.1080/01690960802348852 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.01.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutting, J. C., & Ferreira, V. S. (1999). Semantic and phonological information flow in the production lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 318–344. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.25.2.318
   PubMed 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, 345–361. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.25.2.345
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damian, M. F., Vigliocco, G., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2001). Effects of semantic context in the naming of pictures and words. Cognition, 81, B77–B86. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00135-4 doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00135-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dell, G. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283 doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhooge, E., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2011). The distractor frequency effect in a delayed picture–word interference task: Further evidence for response exclusion. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 116–122. doi: 10.3758/s13423-010-0026-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhooge, E., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2012). Lexical selection and verbal self-monitoring: Effects of lexicality, context, and time pressure in picture–word interference. Journal of Memory and Cognition, 1, 163–176. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Examiner's manual for the PPVT–III Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, M. T., & Abrams, L. (2011). Tip-of-the-tongue states reveal age differences in the syllable frequency effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 277–285. doi:10.1037/a0021328
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, V. S., & Griffin, Z. M. (2003). Phonological influences on lexical (mis)selection. Psychological Science, 14, 86–90. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.01424 doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.01424
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Humphreys, K. R., Boyd, C. H., & Watter, S. (2010). Phonological facilitation from pictures in a word association task: Evidence for routine cascaded processing in spoken word production. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36, 2289–2296. doi:10.1080/17470218.2010.509802 doi: 10.1080/17470218.2010.509802
   Google Scholar
• Jennings, D. T., & Abrams, L. (2013). Automatic detection of voice onset times from waveform data using Microsoft Excel, , Manuscript in preparation
   Google Scholar
• Jescheniak, J. D., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 824–843.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (1983). Boston Naming Test (Revised 60-item version), Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
   Google Scholar
• Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connection between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174. doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1008 doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laganaro, M., & Alario, F. (2006). On the locus of the syllable frequency effect in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 178–196. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.05.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Heij, W., Kuipers, J.-R., & Starreveld, P. A. (2006). In defense of the lexical-competition account of picture–word interference: A comment on Finkbeiner and Caramazza (2006). Cortex, 42, 1028–1031. doi:10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70209-0 doi: 10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70209-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Models of word production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 223–232. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01319-4 doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01319-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75. doi:10.1017/S0140525X99001776
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. J. M., & Wheeldon, L. (1994). Do speakers have access to a mental syllabary?. Cognition, 50, 239–269. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)90030-2 doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90030-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19, 1–36. doi: 10.1097/00003446-199802000-00001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macizo, P., & Van Petten, C. (2007). Syllable frequency in lexical decision and naming of English words. Reading and Writing, 20, 295–331. doi:10.1007/s11145-006-9032-z doi: 10.1007/s11145-006-9032-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKay, D. G. (1987). The organization of perception and action: A theory for language and other cognitive skills, New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
   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, 503–535. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.503
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, A. S., & Schriefers, H. (1991). Phonological facilitation in picture–word interference experiments: Effects of stimulus onset asynchrony and types of interfering stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 1146–1160. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.17.6.1146
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Navarrete, E., Basagni, B., Alario, F., & Costa, A. (2006). Does word frequency affect lexical selection in speech production?. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1681–1690. doi: 10.1080/17470210600750558
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Navarrete, E., & Costa, A. (2009). The naming of gender-marked pronouns supports interactivity in models of lexical access. Psicológica, 30, 301–321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oldfield, R. C., & Wingfield, A. (1965). Response latencies in naming objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17, 273–281. doi: 10.1080/17470216508416445
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (1998). Effects of syllable frequency and syllable neighborhood frequency in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(1), 134–144. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.1.134
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rapp, B., & Goldrick, M. (2006). Speaking words: Contributions of cognitive neuropsychological research. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23, 39–73. doi:10.1080/02643290542000049 doi: 10.1080/02643290542000049
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1990). Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture–word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 86–102. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(90)90011-N doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(90)90011-N
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Starreveld, P. A., & La Heij, W. (1995). Semantic interference, orthographic facilitation, and their interaction in naming tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 686–698. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.3.686
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Starreveld, P. A., & La Heij, W. (1996). Time-course analysis of semantic and orthographic context effects in picture naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(4), 896–918. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.22.4.896
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Starreveld, P. A., & La Heij, W. (2004). Phonological facilitation of grammatical gender retrieval. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 677–711. doi:10.1080/01690960444000061 doi: 10.1080/01690960444000061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taler, V., Aaron, G. P., Steinmetz, L. G., & Pisoni, D. B. (2010). Lexical neighborhood density effects on spoken word recognition and production in healthy aging. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 65B(5), 551–560. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbq039 doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbq039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, J. K., & Burke, D. M. (2002). Asymmetric aging effects on semantic and phonological processes: Naming in the picture–word interference task. Psychology and Aging, 17, 662–676. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.17.4.662
   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, 735–747. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.735
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vitevitch, M. S., Armbrüster, J., & Chu, S. (2004). Sublexical and lexical representations in speech production: Effects of phonotactic probability and onset density. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 514–529. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.514
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (2004). A web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 481–487. Retrieved from http://people.ku.edu/~mvitevit/ PhonoProbHome.html doi: 10.3758/BF03195594
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (2005). Increases in phonotactic probability facilitate spoken nonword repetition. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 193–204. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vitevitch, M. S., Stamer, M. K., & Sereno, J. A. (2008). Word length and lexical competition: Longer is the same as shorter. Language and Speech, 51(4), 361–383. doi:10.1177/0023830908099070 doi: 10.1177/0023830908099070
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar