Distributional analyses in the picture–word interference paradigm: Exploring the semantic interference and the distractor frequency effects

REFERENCES

• Aarts, E., Roelofs, A., & van Turennout, M. (2009). Attentional control of task and response in lateral and medial frontal cortex: Brain activity and reaction time distributions. Neuropsychologia, 47, 2089–2099. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.03.019
   PubMed 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, 531–552. doi: 10.3758/BF03200732
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ayora, P., Peressotti, F., Alario, F.-X., Mulatti, C., Pluchino, P., Job, R., & Dell'Acqua, R. (2011). What phonological facilitation tells about semantic interference: A dual-task study. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00057
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Balota, D. A., & Yap, M. J. (2011). Moving beyond the mean in studies of mental chronometry: The power of response time distributional analyses. Psychological Science, 20, 160–166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., & Watson, J. M. (2008). Beyond mean response latency: Response time distributional analyses of semantic priming. Journal of Memory & Language, 59, 495–523. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barca, L., Burani, C., & Arduino, L. S. (2002). Word naming times and psycholinguistic norms for Italian nouns. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 424–434. doi: 10.3758/BF03195471
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bonin, P., Peereman, R., Malardier, N., Mèot, 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, & Computers, 35, 158–167. doi: 10.3758/BF03195507
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177–208. doi: 10.1080/026432997381664
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cousineau, D., Brown, S., & Heathcote, A. (2004). Fitting distributions using maximum likelihood: Methods and packages. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 742–756. doi: 10.3758/BF03206555
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Jong, R., Berendsen, E., & Cools, R. (1999). Goal neglect and inhibitory limitations: Dissociable causes of interference effects in conflict situations. Acta Psychologica, 101, 379–394. doi: 10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00012-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dell'Acqua, R., Job, R., Peressotti, F., & Pascali, A. (2007). The picture-word interference effect is not a Stroop effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 717–722. doi: 10.3758/BF03196827
   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, 588–615. doi: 10.3758/BF03200832
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dhooge, E., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2010). The distractor frequency effect in picture-word interference: Evidence for response exclusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 878–891.
   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 a late locus of distractor 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 Language, 66, 163–176. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhooge, E., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2013). Distractor exclusion is not an early process: A reply to Roelofs, Piai, and Schriefers (2011). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 313–316.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finkbeiner, M., & Caramazza, A. (2006). Now you see it, now you don't: On turning semantic interference into facilitation in a Stroop-like task. Cotrex, 42, 790–796.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finocchiaro, C., & Navarrete, E. (2013). About the locus of the distractor frequency effect: Evidence from the production of clitic pronouns. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 861–872. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2013.832254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 35, 116–124. doi: 10.3758/BF03195503
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Geng, J., Schnur, T. T., & Janssen, N. (2014). Relative speed of processing affects interference in Stroop and picture–word interference paradigms: Evidence from the distractor frequency effect. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 1100–1114. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2013.846473
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser, W. R., & Dungelhoff, F. J. (1984). The time course of picture–word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 640–654.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heathcote, A., Brown, S., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2002). Quantile maximum likelihood estimation of response time distributions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 394–401. doi: 10.3758/BF03196299
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heathcote, A., Popiel, S. J., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (1991). Analysis of response time distributions: An example using the Stroop task. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 340–347. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.340
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hommel, B. (1997). Interactions between stimulus-stimulus congruence and stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Research, 59, 248–260. doi: 10.1007/BF00439302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. L., Staub, A., & Fleri, A. M. (2012). Distributional analysis of the transposed-letter neighborhood effect on naming latency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1773–1779.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinman, D. (2013). Resolving semantic interference during word production requires central attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1860–1877.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laudanna, A., Thorton, A. M., Brown, G., Burani, C., & Marconi, L. (1995). Un corpus dell'italiano scritto contemporaneo dalla parte del ricevente. In S. Bolasco, L. Lebart, and A. Salem III (Eds.), Giornate Internazionali di Analisi Statistica dei Dati Testuali (Vol. I. pp. 103–109). Roma: Cisu.
   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, 1–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupker, S. J. (1979). The semantic nature of response competition in the Picture–Word Interference Task. Memory and Cognition, 7, 485–495. doi: 10.3758/BF03198265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163
   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, 503–535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahon, B. Z., Garcea, F. E., & Navarrete, E. (2012). Picture-word interference and the Response-exclusion hypothesis: A response to Mulatti and Coltheart. Cortex, 48, 373–377. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.10.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (2003). When more is less: A counterintuitive effect of distractor frequency in picture–word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 228–252. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.132.2.228
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 236–264). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Oomen, C. C. E., & Postma, A. (2002). Limitations in processing resources and speech monitoring. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 163–184. doi: 10.1080/01690960143000010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 41, 19–45. doi: 10.1080/14640748908402351
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piai, V. & Roelofs, A. (2013). Working memory capacity and dual-task interference in picture naming. Acta Psychologica, 142, 332–342. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.01.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piai, V., Roelofs, A., & Schriefers, H. (2011). Semantic interference in immediate and delayed naming and reading: Attention and task decisions. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 404–423. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piai, V., Roelofs, A., & Schriefers, H. (2012). Distractor strength and selective attention in picture-naming performance. Memory & Cognition, 40, 614–627. doi: 10.3758/s13421-011-0171-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piai, V., Roelofs, A., & Schriefers, H. (2014). Locus of semantic interference in picture naming: Evidence from dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 147–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postma, A. (2000). Detection of errors during speech production: A review of speech monitoring models. Cognition, 77, 97–132. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00090-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratte, M. S., Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., & Feng, C. (2010). Exploring the differences in distributional properties between Stroop and Simon effects using delta plots. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 72, 2013–2025. doi: 10.3758/APP.72.7.2013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Protopapas, A. (2007). CheckVocal: A program to facilitate checking the accuracy and response time of vocal responses from DMDX. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 859–862. doi: 10.3758/BF03192979
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratcliff, R. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 446–461. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.446
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynolds, M., & Besner, D. (2006). Reading aloud is not automatic: Processing capacity is required to generate a phonological code from print. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1303–1323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42, 107–142. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(92)90041-F
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roelofs, A. (1997). The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition, 64, 249–284. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00027-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roelofs, A. (2003). Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: Modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. Psychological Review, 110, 88–125. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.88
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roelofs, A. (2005). From Popper to Lakatos: A case for cumulative computational modeling. In A. Cutler (Ed.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones (pp. 313–330). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
   Google Scholar
• Roelofs, A. (2008a). Dynamics of the attentional control of word retrieval: Analyses of response time distributions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 303–323. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.137.2.303
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roelofs, A. (2008b). Tracing attention and the activation flow in spoken word planning using eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 353–368.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roelofs, A. (2012). Attention, spatial integration, and the tail of response time distributions in Stroop task performance. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 135–150. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2011.605152
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roelofs, A., Piai, V., & Garrido Rodriguez, G. (2011a). Attentional inhibition in bilingual naming performance: Evidence from delta-plot analyses. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, article 184.
   Google Scholar
• Roelofs, A., Piai, V., & Schriefers, H. (2011b). Selective attention and distractor frequency in naming performance: Comment on Dhooge and Hartsuiker (2010). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1032–1038.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosinski, R. R. (1977). Picture–word interference is semantically based. Child Development, 48, 643–647. doi: 10.2307/1128667
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouder, J. N., Lu, J., Speckman, P., Sun, D., & Jiang, Y. (2005). A hierarchical model for estimating response time distributions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 195–223. doi: 10.3758/BF03257252
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scaltritti, M., Balota, D. A., & Peressotti, F. (2013). Exploring the additive effects of stimulus quality and word frequency: The influence of local and list-wide prime relatedness. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 91–107. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2012.698628
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnur, T. T., & Martin, R. (2012). Semantic picture-word interference is a post-perceptual effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 301–308. doi: 10.3758/s13423-011-0190-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shao, Z., Meyer, A. S., & Roelofs, A. (2013). Selective and nonselective inhibition of competitors in picture naming. Memory & Cognition, 41, 1200–1211. doi: 10.3758/s13421-013-0332-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shao, Z., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (2012). Sources of individual differences in the speed of naming objects and actions: The contribution of executive control. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1927–1944. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2012.670252
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spieler, H. D., Balota, D. A., & Faust, M. E. (2000). Levels of selective attention revealed through analyses of response time distributions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Attention and Performance, 26, 506–526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinhouser, M., & Hübner, R. (2009). Distinguishing response conflict and task conflict in the Stroop task: Evidence from ex-Gaussian distribution analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1398–1412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, M. A., Neely, J. H., & O'Connor, P. (2012). When word identification gets tough, retrospective semantic processing comes to rescue. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 623–643. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Maanen, L., van Rijn, H., & Taatgen, N. (2012). RACE/A: An architectural account of the interactions between learning, task control, and retrieval dynamics. Cognitive Science, 36, 62–101. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01213.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Selst, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 47, 631–650. doi: 10.1080/14640749408401131
   Google Scholar
• White, S. J., & Staub, A. (2012). The distribution of fixation durations during reading: Effects of stimulus quality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 603–617.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yap, M. J., Tse, C. S., & Balota, D. A. (2009). Individual differences in the joint effects of semantic priming and word frequency revealed by RT distributional analyses: The role of lexical integrity. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 303–325. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.07.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar