Abstracts 2005 - The Psychonomic Society

Papers 134–141 Saturday Morning
Word Production
Essex Room, Saturday Morning, 8:00–9:40
Chaired by Jens Bölte, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster
8:00–8:15 (134)
Categorical Inhibition and Associative Facilitation in Language
Production. JENS BÖLTE, ANNETT JORSCHICK, & PIENIE ZWIT-
SERLOOD, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster—Associative
effects are rarely investigated in word production research, which focuses
on categorical and phonological effects. We investigated different
types of associative relation (part–whole, location, and feature) in a
picture–word interference experiment, which also included distractors
that were categorically related to the pictures. The particular associations
used were not due to collocations, as was shown in a lexical database
analysis. The impact of associative and categorical distractors
was assessed relative to a baseline with unrelated distractors. Associatively
related distractors facilitated picture naming irrespective of
the type of relation; categorically related distractors, however, produced
inhibition. We explain the different direction and time course
of effects in terms of the ways in which associative and semantic distractors
are linked with the picture’s concept and lexical entry.
8:20–8:35 (135)
Are Age-of-Acquisition Effects in Object Naming Simply Due to Differences
in Object Recognition? PATRICK BONIN, ALAIN MÉOT
& MARYLÈNE CHALARD, Université Blaise Pascal, & CHRISTO-
PHER BARRY, University of Essex—Levelt (2002) argued that effects
of word frequency and age of acquisition (AoA) reported in recent
picture-naming studies might be due to confounded effects operating
at the level of object recognition, rather than being relevant to theories
of lexical retrieval. In order to investigate this issue, AoA effects
were examined in an object recognition memory task (Experiments 1
and 2) and in a word–picture verification task (Experiment 3) and
were compared with those found for naming the same pictures. Contrary
to Levelt’s concerns, the results of the three experiments show
that the AoA effect in picture naming has a lexical origin and does not
simply result from a possible confound of object identification times.
8:40–8:55 (136)
Capacity Demands in Word Production. ANTJE S. MEYER & AMY
FLAVELL, University of Birmingham—The received view in the speech
production literature is that only conceptual planning, but not lexical
retrieval processes, require processing capacity. However, using a
dual-task paradigm (naming of pictures accompanied by related or unrelated
distractor words + tone discrimination), Ferreira and Pashler
(2002, JEP:LMC) showed that the retrieval of lexical–semantic units
required processing capacity, whereas the retrieval of the corresponding
phonological segments appeared to be an automatic process: Picturenaming
and tone discrimination latencies were longer after semantically
related than after unrelated distractors, but phonological relatedness
affected only the picture-naming, but not the tone discrimination, latencies.
In Experiment 1, we replicated these results. However, in Experiment
2, we used distractor pictures instead of words and found
phonological effects for the tone discrimination, as well as the picturenaming,
latencies. The methodological and theoretical implications of
these findings will be discussed.
9:00–9:15 (137)
The Fate of Nonproduced Picture Names. NIELS O. SCHILLER,
Maastricht University, NINA GROTEN, University of Bonn, & INGRID
K. CHRISTOFFELS, Maastricht University—A series of picture–word
interference experiments is presented that investigate whether or not
pictures are phonologically encoded even though their names are not
pronounced. In an associate naming task, Dutch participants saw pictures
(e.g., of a cow; “koe” in Dutch) and were asked to name an associate
(e.g., “melk,” milk). Distractor words were semantically related
(e.g., “ezel,” donkey), phonologically related (e.g., “koek,”
22
cookie), or unrelated to the picture name (e.g., “appel,” apple). Results
showed shorter response latencies in both the semantic and the phonological
conditions. These results can be accounted for by interactive
and serial models (via cohort activation—i.e., “koek” activates “koe”)
of language production. In a second experiment, end-related phonological
distractors (e.g., “taboe,” taboo) were used, and again phonological
facilitation was obtained. This result makes an account in
terms of cohort activation more unlikely and favors an interactive activation
account.
9:20–9:35 (138)
Picture Naming: The Role of Target Learning. PATRIZIA TABOSSI,
Università di Trieste, & SIMONA COLLINA, Università degli Studi
Suor Orsola Benincasa—In the classic Stroop effect, naming the ink
color of a written word (e.g., red) takes longer if the word refers to the
same, rather than to a different, color (e.g., red vs. green). Similar effects
obtain when the color of the Stroop stimulus is replaced by a picture.
However, unlike the classic Stroop research, picture–word interference
studies are typically preceded by a learning phase, during
which participants learn the names of the pictures that they will have to
produce during the experiment. The effects of this procedure on task
performance are explored in a series of experiments. The implications
of the results for current models of word production are discussed.
Memory Processes I
Grand Ballroom East, Saturday Morning, 8:00–9:40
Chaired by Michael J. Kahana, University of Pennsylvania
8:00–8:15 (139)
Associative Processes in Episodic Memory. MICHAEL J. KAHANA,
University of Pennsylvania—Although traditionally studied using
paired associates, interitem associations can also help describe data
on free recall and serial recall tasks. I present new data on the role of
temporally defined associations in item recognition and in the pattern
of errors (false memories) committed in free and cued recall tasks. I
show how the interplay of temporal and semantic associations gives
rise to subjective organization over the course of learning. Finally, I
discuss these findings within the framework of a new version of the
temporal context model (TCM).
8:20–8:35 (140)
The Mirror Effect and the Spacing Effect. BENNET MURDOCK,
University of Toronto—The mirror and spacing effects are two rather
surprising effects found in simple item-recognition–memory studies.
They illustrate a “leapfrog” effect where a weaker or older item jumps
over a stronger or more recent item after a single presentation. I recently
proposed a simple model based on a linear combination of excitatory,
inhibitory, and context factors that was able to fit the data reasonably
well with the same parameter values for both effects. I report
the results of several experiments dealing with the spacing effect for
low- and high-frequency words that were roughly consistent with the
predictions of the model.
8:40–8:55 (141)
Are Frequency Effects Due to Frequency? ANGELA B. NELSON
& RICHARD M. SHIFFRIN, Indiana University (read by Richard M.
Shiffrin)—Word frequency effects are pervasive in explicit and implicit
memory: In different tasks, higher frequency sometimes produces
better performance and sometimes worse. However, words that
differ in frequency differ in essentially every other word characteristic
that can be measured (length, spelling, concreteness, and so on),
making it hard to assess the role of past experience per se. We trained
observers to search for Chinese characters in a visual search task, for
12 sessions. Different characters were given different degrees of training.
We demonstrated differential learning by a differential reduction
in slope and intercept. In one transfer task, we tested episodic recognition,
showing an advantage for low-frequency characters and a mir-