What Phonological Facilitation Tells about Semantic Interference: A Dual-Task Study

Claudio Mulatti,F.-Xavier Alario,Francesca Peressotti,Patrick Pluchino,Pauline Ayora,Remo Job,Roberto Dell'Acqua

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00057

Claudio Mulatti, F.-Xavier Alario + Show 5 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00057

Copy DOI

Abstract

Despite increasing interest in the topic, the extent to which linguistic processing demands attentional resources remains poorly understood. We report an empirical re-examination of claims about lexical processing made on the basis of the picture–word interference task when merged in a dual-task psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm. Two experiments were conducted in which participants were presented with a tone followed, at varying stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs), by a picture–word stimulus. In Experiment 1, the phonological relatedness between pictures and words was manipulated. Begin- and end-related words decreased picture naming latencies relative to unrelated words. This effect was additive with SOA effects. In Experiment 2, both the semantic and the phonological relatedness between pictures and words were manipulated. Replicating Experiment 1, effects arising from the phonological manipulation were additive with SOA effects on picture naming latencies. In contrast, effects arising from the semantic manipulation were under additive with SOA effects on picture naming latencies, that is, semantic interference decreased as SOA was decreased. Such contrastive pattern suggests that semantic and phonological effects on picture naming latencies are characterized by distinguishable sources, the former prior to the PRP bottleneck and the latter at the PRP bottleneck or after. The present findings are discussed in relation to current models of language production.

Highlights

Producing even the simplest utterance belies an articulate sequence of processing stages and representations
As surmised in the Introduction, the present results are at odds with predictions derived from the inefficient distractor word processing assumption, and more compatible with the view that phonological effects are likely to have a central or post-central source, whereas semantic effects are likely to have a pre-central source in picture–word interference (PWI) tasks
Given the absence of a significant interaction with the type of distractor factor, in no way is this pattern conceptually intertwined with the conclusion we draw from Experiment 2 concerning the locus of semantic interference and phonological facilitation in the present PWI/psychological refractory period (PRP) design

Summary

Introduction

Producing even the simplest utterance belies an articulate sequence of processing stages and representations. The post-lexical hypothesis locates the semantic interference effect at a response exclusion stage (Mahon et al, 2007), where response is triggered for articulation According to this view, distractor words have privileged access to the articulatory output buffer, and the time it takes to remove the distractor from this buffer is function of its semantic relevance for the naming task at hand. A third class of interpretation has highlighted the role of pre-lexical processes involved in message elaboration at the semantic level (e.g., Costa et al, 2005; Kuipers et al, 2006) According to this view, the conflict created by the semantic interplay between pictures and words occurs at the level of conceptual processes of message elaboration, to select which semantic representation will be lexicalized

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion