Abstract
In picture–word interference experiments, participants name pictures (e.g., of a cat) while trying to ignore distractor words. Mean response time (RT) is typically longer with semantically related distractor words (e.g., dog) than with unrelated words (e.g., shoe), called semantic interference. Previous research has examined the RT distributional characteristics of distractor effects by performing ex-Gaussian analyses, which reveal whether effects are present in the normal part of the distribution (the μ parameter), its long right tail (the τ parameter), or both. One previous study linked the semantic interference effect selectively to the distribution tail. In the present study, we replicated the semantic interference effect in the mean picture naming RTs. Distributional analysis of the RTs and those of a previous study revealed that semantic interference was present in both μ and τ. These results provide evidence that the effect is not selectively linked to the τ parameter, and they warn against any simple one-to-one mapping between semantic interference and distributional parameters.
Highlights
In picture–word interference experiments, participants name pictures while trying to ignore distractor words
Scaltritti et al (2015) observed semantic interference mainly in the τ parameter and obtained only fullblown semantic interference in the slowest deciles. They argued that semantic interference is selectively linked to the tail of an response time (RT) distribution
We observed semantic interference in μ. This excludes the possibility that the previous findings of semantic interference in μ are due to the unusual stimulus durations
Summary
In picture–word interference experiments, participants name pictures (e.g., of a cat) while trying to ignore distractor words. An important tool in studying spoken word production is the picture–word interference paradigm, which has been used to obtain evidence from healthy adult speakers (e.g., Damian & Martin, 1999; Schriefers, Meyer, & Levelt, 1990) and from impaired populations, including people with aphasia as a consequence of stroke (e.g., Hashimoto & Thompson, 2010) or neurodegenerative disease (e.g., Thompson et al, 2012) In this paradigm, speakers name pictures while trying to ignore spoken or written distractor words. Whereas researchers have relied heavily on mean RT in studies of picture–word interference and colour–word Stroop task performance (e.g., MacLeod, 1991), some previous studies have performed ex-Gaussian analyses to characterize entire RT distributions. In a seminal study of the Stroop task using ex-Gaussian analysis, Heathcote, Popiel, and Mewhort (1991) observed that the RT effect of distractor condition (i.e., incongruent, congruent, neutral) may be different for the condition means and the three ex-Gaussian parameters. These results have been replicated by Mewhort, Braun, and Heathcote (1992), Spieler, Balota, and Faust (1996, 2000), and Roelofs (2012)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
