Abstract
In our original article, we presented a picture–word interference experiment in which pictures had to be named with basic level names, although their naming preference was at the subordinate level (e.g., picture: rose, response: flower). We observed semantic interference for distractor words denoting the subordinate name of the picture, but no effect for distractor words denoting another subordinate name corresponding to the same basic level. We argued that this pattern is inconsistent with the assumption that semantic interference effects in picture–word interference tasks are caused by a post-lexical response-exclusion mechanism which operates over coarse semantic properties of distractor words, but that lexical competition models can account for these results. In their commentary on our article, Navarrete and Mahon come to the opposite conclusion. Here we are addressing the principal objections raised by Navarrete and Mahon, regarding the interpretation of our results. We elaborate on our view that lexical competition models can account for our data and agree that a response-exclusion mechanism, which is part of a general monitoring system and operates over fine-grained semantic information, would be compatible with our data.
Published Version
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 call