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.


Vincentized cumulative distribution curves for non-masked and masked distractor presentations (A and B, respectively), by relatedness type (categorical, associated, both) and relatedness (related vs. unrelated).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 2: Vincentized cumulative distribution curves for non-masked and masked distractor presentations (A and B, respectively), by relatedness type (categorical, associated, both) and relatedness (related vs. unrelated).

Mentions: Figure 2A shows distribution curves for the “non-masked” presentation mode, and for all three types of relatedness (note that untrimmed latencies were used to generate Figure 2; see Heathcote et al., 1991). As expected from previous research (e.g., Roelofs, 2008), effects were spread out across the entire spectrum for the “categorical” and “combined” condition. The facilitatory effect for the “associated” condition emerged to a larger extent in the slower quintile. Figure 2B shows curves for the “masked” presentation mode. Intriguingly, the semantic facilitation effect weakly present in the means (cf. Table 2) predominantly emerged in the slowest (rightmost) quintile. This is clearly contrary to what one might predict on the assumption that well-masked (and hence fast) RTs should exhibit facilitation whereas poorly masked RTs show interference.


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

Damian MF, Spalek K - Front Psychol (2014)

Vincentized cumulative distribution curves for non-masked and masked distractor presentations (A and B, respectively), by relatedness type (categorical, associated, both) and relatedness (related vs. unrelated).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 2: Vincentized cumulative distribution curves for non-masked and masked distractor presentations (A and B, respectively), by relatedness type (categorical, associated, both) and relatedness (related vs. unrelated).
Mentions: Figure 2A shows distribution curves for the “non-masked” presentation mode, and for all three types of relatedness (note that untrimmed latencies were used to generate Figure 2; see Heathcote et al., 1991). As expected from previous research (e.g., Roelofs, 2008), effects were spread out across the entire spectrum for the “categorical” and “combined” condition. The facilitatory effect for the “associated” condition emerged to a larger extent in the slower quintile. Figure 2B shows curves for the “masked” presentation mode. Intriguingly, the semantic facilitation effect weakly present in the means (cf. Table 2) predominantly emerged in the slowest (rightmost) quintile. This is clearly contrary to what one might predict on the assumption that well-masked (and hence fast) RTs should exhibit facilitation whereas poorly masked RTs show interference.

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.