Locus of Semantic Interference in Picture-word Interference Tasks

Overview

Journal Psychon Bull Rev

Specialty Psychology

Date 2003 May 16

PMID 12747497

Citations 58

Authors

Markus F Damian

Jeffrey S Bowers

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Picture-word interference studies typically show that semantically related distractor words embedded within a picture slow picture-naming responses, relative to unrelated ones. This semantic interference effect is commonly interpreted as arising from the competition of lexical-semantic (e.g., Schriefers, Meyer, & Levelt, 1990) or lexical-phonological (e.g., Starreveld & La Heij, 1996) codes. The experiment reported here tests a crucial assumption shared by these accounts--namely, that the effect reflects a lexical, rather than a nonverbal, conceptual conflict. Pictures were named while participants attempted to ignore embedded distractors that were in either verbal or pictorial format. The presence of both words and pictures substantially interfered with naming responses, but only words, not pictures, were found to induce semantic interference. These findings support the claim that for semantic interference to arise, both target picture and distractor have to be lexicalized. Consequently, a general conceptual locus of the effect can be excluded, and the claim that semantic interference is based on a lexical conflict is confirmed.

Citing Articles

Hearing Pronouns Primes Speakers to Use Pronouns.

Arnold J Open Mind (Camb). 2025; 9():47-69.

PMID: 39817185 PMC: 11729791. DOI: 10.1162/opmi_a_00178.

Consolidation improves the learning of new meanings for known words but not necessarily their integration into semantic memory.

Fang X, Perfetti C Lang Cogn Neurosci. 2024; 39(3):351-366.

PMID: 38962374 PMC: 11219009. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2023.2293853.

The effects of emotional stimuli on Word retrieval in people with aphasia.

Schwen Blackett D, Borod J, Speer S, Pan X, Harnish S Neuropsychologia. 2023; 192():108734.

PMID: 37952713 PMC: 10833091. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2023.108734.

Information-theoretic principles in incremental language production.

Futrell R Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023; 120(39):e2220593120.

PMID: 37725652 PMC: 10523564. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2220593120.

Diving into a pool or volcano? Examining the influence of sentence context and task demands on sentence reading in younger and older adults.

Haigh P, Hanif N, de Bruin A PLoS One. 2022; 17(12):e0279555.

PMID: 36584104 PMC: 9803221. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279555.

References

Virzi R, Egeth H . Is meaning implicated in illusory conjunctions?. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1984; 10(4):573-80. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.10.4.573. View

McClain L . Effects of response type and set size on Stroop color-word performance. Percept Mot Skills. 1983; 56(3):735-43. DOI: 10.2466/pms.1983.56.3.735. View

Schmit V, Davis R . The role of hemispheric specialization in the analysis of Stroop stimuli. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1974; 38(2):149-58. DOI: 10.1016/0001-6918(74)90024-9. View

Roelofs A . A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition. 1992; 42(1-3):107-42. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(92)90041-f. View

Levelt W, Roelofs A, Meyer A . A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behav Brain Sci. 2001; 22(1):1-38; discussion 38-75. DOI: 10.1017/s0140525x99001776. View

Glaser M, Glaser W . Time course analysis of the Stroop phenomenon. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1982; 8(6):875-94. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.8.6.875. View

La Heij W . Components of Stroop-like interference in picture naming. Mem Cognit. 1988; 16(5):400-10. DOI: 10.3758/bf03214220. View

Snodgrass J, Vanderwart M . A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn. 1980; 6(2):174-215. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.6.2.174. View

Roe W, Wilsoncroft W, Griffiths R . Effects of motor and verbal practice on the Stroop task. Percept Mot Skills. 1980; 50(2):647-50. DOI: 10.1177/003151258005000210. View

10.

Dean M, Bub D, Masson M . Interference from related items in object identification. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001; 27(3):733-43. View

11.

Damian M, Martin R . Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1999; 25(2):345-61. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.25.2.345. View

12.

Hagenaar R, van der Heijden A . Target-noise separation in visual selective attention. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1986; 62(2):161-76. DOI: 10.1016/0001-6918(86)90066-1. View

13.

Glaser W, Dungelhoff F . The time course of picture-word interference. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1984; 10(5):640-54. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.10.5.640. View

14.

Macleod C . Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychol Bull. 1991; 109(2):163-203. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163. View

15.

Redding G, Gerjets D . Stroop effect: interference and facilitation with verbal and manual responses. Percept Mot Skills. 1977; 45(1):11-7. DOI: 10.2466/pms.1977.45.1.11. View

16.

Snodgrass J, McCullough B . The role of visual similarity in picture categorization. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1986; 12(1):147-54. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.12.1.147. View

17.

Rayner K, Springer C . Graphemic and semantic similarity effects in the picture-word interference task. Br J Psychol. 1986; 77 ( Pt 2):207-22. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1986.tb01995.x. View

18.

Roelofs A . Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. Psychol Rev. 2003; 110(1):88-125. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.110.1.88. View

19.

Standing L . Learning 10,000 pictures. Q J Exp Psychol. 1973; 25(2):207-22. DOI: 10.1080/14640747308400340. View

20.

Potter M, Faulconer B . Time to understand pictures and words. Nature. 1975; 253(5491):437-8. DOI: 10.1038/253437a0. View