Limits...
Processing different kinds of semantic relations in picture-word interference with non-masked and masked distractors.

Damian MF, Spalek K - Front Psychol (2014)

Bottom Line: Post-experimental visibility tests showed that weak semantic facilitation with masked distractors did not depend on individual variability in participants' ability to perceive the distractors.Associatively related distractors showed facilitation with non-masked presentation, but little effect when masked.Overall, the results suggest that it is primarily distractor activation strength which determines whether semantic effects are facilitatory or interfering in PWI tasks.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol Bristol, UK.

ABSTRACT
Spoken production requires lexical selection, guided by the conceptual representation of the to-be-named target. Currently, the question whether lexical selection is subject to competition is hotly debated. In the picture-word interference task, manipulating the visibility of written distractor words provides important insights: clearly visible categorically related distractors cause interference whereas masked distractors induce facilitation (Finkbeiner and Caramazza, 2006). Now you see it, now you don't: On turning semantic interference into facilitation in a Stoop-like task. We explored the effect of distractor masking in more depth by investigating its interplay with different types of semantic overlap. Specifically, we contrasted categorical with associatively based relatedness. For the former, we replicated the polarity reversal in semantic effects dependent on whether distractors were masked or not. Post-experimental visibility tests showed that weak semantic facilitation with masked distractors did not depend on individual variability in participants' ability to perceive the distractors. Associatively related distractors showed facilitation with non-masked presentation, but little effect when masked. Overall, the results suggest that it is primarily distractor activation strength which determines whether semantic effects are facilitatory or interfering in PWI tasks.

No MeSH data available.


Picture word interference effect (masked, for “categorically related” distractors; as percent relative to unrelated baseline) dependent on d-prime in lexical decision task. Dots represent individual participants.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4202702&req=5

Figure 1: Picture word interference effect (masked, for “categorically related” distractors; as percent relative to unrelated baseline) dependent on d-prime in lexical decision task. Dots represent individual participants.

Mentions: To investigate this issue, we focused on the “categorically related” condition (predictions for the other two types of relatedness are more difficult, as net results might be a combination of interference and facilitation). Figure 1 shows the masked categorical effect, conceptualized as a percentage change relative to the unrelated baseline condition, and dependent on d′ scores (dots represent individual participants). As can be seen, d′ scores are relatively uniformly distributed within the range, and there is no evident relationship between the experimental effect and individual visibility. A linear regression showed very little effect, R2 = 0.016, β = −0.13, SE = 0.15, F(1, 45) < 1, p = 0.396. In other words, participants with low and high ability to consciously perceive the masked distractors showed very similar experimental effects.


Processing different kinds of semantic relations in picture-word interference with non-masked and masked distractors.

Damian MF, Spalek K - Front Psychol (2014)

Picture word interference effect (masked, for “categorically related” distractors; as percent relative to unrelated baseline) dependent on d-prime in lexical decision task. Dots represent individual participants.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4202702&req=5

Figure 1: Picture word interference effect (masked, for “categorically related” distractors; as percent relative to unrelated baseline) dependent on d-prime in lexical decision task. Dots represent individual participants.
Mentions: To investigate this issue, we focused on the “categorically related” condition (predictions for the other two types of relatedness are more difficult, as net results might be a combination of interference and facilitation). Figure 1 shows the masked categorical effect, conceptualized as a percentage change relative to the unrelated baseline condition, and dependent on d′ scores (dots represent individual participants). As can be seen, d′ scores are relatively uniformly distributed within the range, and there is no evident relationship between the experimental effect and individual visibility. A linear regression showed very little effect, R2 = 0.016, β = −0.13, SE = 0.15, F(1, 45) < 1, p = 0.396. In other words, participants with low and high ability to consciously perceive the masked distractors showed very similar experimental effects.

Bottom Line: Post-experimental visibility tests showed that weak semantic facilitation with masked distractors did not depend on individual variability in participants' ability to perceive the distractors.Associatively related distractors showed facilitation with non-masked presentation, but little effect when masked.Overall, the results suggest that it is primarily distractor activation strength which determines whether semantic effects are facilitatory or interfering in PWI tasks.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol Bristol, UK.

ABSTRACT
Spoken production requires lexical selection, guided by the conceptual representation of the to-be-named target. Currently, the question whether lexical selection is subject to competition is hotly debated. In the picture-word interference task, manipulating the visibility of written distractor words provides important insights: clearly visible categorically related distractors cause interference whereas masked distractors induce facilitation (Finkbeiner and Caramazza, 2006). Now you see it, now you don't: On turning semantic interference into facilitation in a Stoop-like task. We explored the effect of distractor masking in more depth by investigating its interplay with different types of semantic overlap. Specifically, we contrasted categorical with associatively based relatedness. For the former, we replicated the polarity reversal in semantic effects dependent on whether distractors were masked or not. Post-experimental visibility tests showed that weak semantic facilitation with masked distractors did not depend on individual variability in participants' ability to perceive the distractors. Associatively related distractors showed facilitation with non-masked presentation, but little effect when masked. Overall, the results suggest that it is primarily distractor activation strength which determines whether semantic effects are facilitatory or interfering in PWI tasks.

No MeSH data available.