FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Front Psychol / The roles of shared vs. distinctive conceptual features in l...
Frontiers in psychology2014; 5; 1014; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01014

The roles of shared vs. distinctive conceptual features in lexical access.

Abstract: Contemporary models of spoken word production assume conceptual feature sharing determines the speed with which objects are named in categorically-related contexts. However, statistical models of concept representation have also identified a role for feature distinctiveness, i.e., features that identify a single concept and serve to distinguish it quickly from other similar concepts. In three experiments we investigated whether distinctive features might explain reports of counter-intuitive semantic facilitation effects in the picture word interference (PWI) paradigm. In Experiment 1, categorically-related distractors matched in terms of semantic similarity ratings (e.g., zebra and pony) and manipulated with respect to feature distinctiveness (e.g., a zebra has stripes unlike other equine species) elicited interference effects of comparable magnitude. Experiments 2 and 3 investigated the role of feature distinctiveness with respect to reports of facilitated naming with part-whole distractor-target relations (e.g., a hump is a distinguishing part of a CAMEL, whereas knee is not, vs. an unrelated part such as plug). Related part distractors did not influence target picture naming latencies significantly when the part denoted by the related distractor was not visible in the target picture (whether distinctive or not; Experiment 2). When the part denoted by the related distractor was visible in the target picture, non-distinctive part distractors slowed target naming significantly at SOA of -150 ms (Experiment 3). Thus, our results show that semantic interference does occur for part-whole distractor-target relations in PWI, but only when distractors denote features shared with the target and other category exemplars. We discuss the implications of these results for some recently developed, novel accounts of lexical access in spoken word production.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2014-09-16 PubMed ID: 25278914PubMed Central: PMC4165322DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01014Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The researchers investigated the cognitive process of word-spoken production, comparing how shared and distinctive conceptual features affect the speed and accuracy of naming objects. This study found that the visibility of part-whole relations in the object being named significantly impacts how quickly and accurately it is named, particularly when part distractors denote features that are shared with the target object.

Study Overview

The study was conducted in the context of models for word-spoken production, which suggest that conceptual feature sharing is crucial for determining how quickly objects are named. The focus was also on statistical models of concept representation, which indicate a role for distinctive features that aid in differentiating similar concepts swiftly.

  • Three experiments were conducted to delve into whether distinctive features could account for unexpected semantic facilitation effects in the picture word interference (PWI) concept.
  • In the PWI scenario, a target item (an image to be named) is presented alongside a distracting word. The experiments aimed to observe if distinctive or shared properties of this distracting word influenced the speed and accuracy of speech production.

Methods

The methods varied across the three designed experiments.

  • In the first experiment, categorically-related distractors were used, which had the same level of semantic similarity (For example, ‘zebra’ and ‘pony’). Still, they were manipulated to display distinctive features (A ‘zebra’ has distinctive stripes unlike other equine species).
  • In experiments two and three, they explored the role of feature distinctiveness in situations where the distraught is a part-whole relation of the target ( for instance, ‘hump’ is a distinctive part of a ‘CAMEL, ‘knee’ is not a distinctive part and ‘plug’ is completely unrelated).

Findings

Findings of the study presented the following outcomes:

  • In experiment one, even though the distractors were categorically-related, they still reported interference effects of similar magnitudes due to the manipulation of distinctiveness.
  • In experiments two and three, it was found that if the part noted by a related distractor was visible in the target picture, it significantly impacted the naming latency (whether the part was distinctive or not).
  • The study also revealed that semantic interference does occur for part-whole distractor-target relations in PWI, but only when distractors show features shared with the target and other category examples.

Conclusion and Implications

The results of this study offer important insights into the cognitive process of word-spoken production. It primarily emphasizes the importance of distinctive and shared features in naming objects. Furthermore, it invites further research on lexical access in spoken word production and challenges current models and novelty accounts. The study may have promising implications for refining our understanding of linguistic processing, cognitive psychology, and communication disorders.

Cite This Article

APA
Vieth HE, McMahon KL, de Zubicaray GI. (2014). The roles of shared vs. distinctive conceptual features in lexical access. Front Psychol, 5, 1014. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01014

Publication

Frontiers in psychology
ISSN: 1664-1078
NlmUniqueID: 101550902
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 5
Pages: 1014
PII: 1014

Researcher Affiliations

Vieth, Harrison E
  • School of Psychology, University of Queensland Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
McMahon, Katie L
  • Centre for Advanced Imaging, University of Queensland Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
de Zubicaray, Greig I
  • School of Psychology, University of Queensland Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

References

This article includes 48 references
  1. Adlington RL, Laws KR, Gale TM. The Hatfield Image Test (HIT): a new picture test and norms for experimental and clinical use.. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2009 Aug;31(6):731-53.
    doi: 10.1080/13803390802488103pubmed: 19105074google scholar: lookup
  2. Alario FX, Segui J, Ferrand L. Semantic and associative priming in picture naming.. Q J Exp Psychol A 2000 Aug;53(3):741-64.
    doi: 10.1080/027249800410535pubmed: 10994228google scholar: lookup
  3. Balota DA, Yap MJ, Cortese MJ, Hutchison KA, Kessler B, Loftis B, Neely JH, Nelson DL, Simpson GB, Treiman R. The English Lexicon Project.. Behav Res Methods 2007 Aug;39(3):445-59.
    doi: 10.3758/bf03193014pubmed: 17958156google scholar: lookup
  4. Bonin P, Peereman R, Malardier N, Méot A, Chalard M. A new set of 299 pictures for psycholinguistic studies: French norms for name agreement, image agreement, conceptual familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, age of acquisition, and naming latencies.. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 2003 Feb;35(1):158-67.
    doi: 10.3758/BF03195507pubmed: 12723790google scholar: lookup
  5. Brysbaert M, Warriner AB, Kuperman V. Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas.. Behav Res Methods 2014 Sep;46(3):904-11.
    doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5pubmed: 24142837google scholar: lookup
  6. Caramazza A. How many levels of processing are there in lexical access?. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 14, 177–208.
  7. Collina S, Tabossi P, De Simone F. Word production and the picture-word interference paradigm: the role of learning.. J Psycholinguist Res 2013 Oct;42(5):461-73.
    doi: 10.1007/s10936-012-9229-zpubmed: 23099552google scholar: lookup
  8. Collins AM, Loftus EF. Spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychol. Rev. 82, 407–428.
  9. Costa A, Alario FX, Caramazza A. On the categorical nature of the semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm.. Psychon Bull Rev 2005 Feb;12(1):125-31.
    doi: 10.3758/BF03196357pubmed: 15948287google scholar: lookup
  10. Costa A, Mahon B, Savova V, Caramazza A. Level of categorization effect: a novel effect in the picture–word interference paradigm. Lang. Cogn. Process. 18, 205–233.
    doi: 10.1080/01690960143000524google scholar: lookup
  11. Cree GS, McNorgan C, McRae K. Distinctive features hold a privileged status in the computation of word meaning: Implications for theories of semantic memory.. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 2006 Jul;32(4):643-58.
    doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.32.4.643pmc: PMC3226832pubmed: 16822138google scholar: lookup
  12. Cycowicz YM, Friedman D, Rothstein M, Snodgrass JG. Picture naming by young children: norms for name agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity.. J Exp Child Psychol 1997 May;65(2):171-237.
    pubmed: 9169209doi: 10.1006/jecp.1996.2356google scholar: lookup
  13. Damian MF, Martin RC. Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production.. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1999 Mar;25(2):345-61.
    doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.25.2.345pubmed: 10093206google scholar: lookup
  14. Dell GS, O'Seaghdha PG. Stages of lexical access in language production.. Cognition 1992 Mar;42(1-3):287-314.
    doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(92)90046-kpubmed: 1582160google scholar: lookup
  15. Goldrick M, Rapp B. A restricted interaction account (RIA) of spoken word production: the best of both worlds. Aphasiology 16, 20–55.
    doi: 10.1080/02687040143000203google scholar: lookup
  16. Grondin R, Lupker SJ, McRae K. Shared Features Dominate Semantic Richness Effects for Concrete Concepts.. J Mem Lang 2009 Jan;60(1):1-19.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2008.09.001pmc: PMC2634287pubmed: 20046224google scholar: lookup
  17. Hantsch A, Jescheniak JD, Mädebach A. Naming and categorizing objects: task differences modulate the polarity of semantic effects in the picture-word interference paradigm.. Mem Cognit 2012 Jul;40(5):760-8.
    doi: 10.3758/s13421-012-0184-6pubmed: 22371163google scholar: lookup
  18. Kaplan AS, Medin DL. The coincidence effect in similarity and choice.. Mem Cognit 1997 Jul;25(4):570-6.
    doi: 10.3758/bf03201130pubmed: 9259632google scholar: lookup
  19. Kiss GR, Armstrong C, Milroy R, Piper J. An associative thesaurus of English and its computer analysis, in The Computer and Literary Studies, eds Aitken A. J., Bailey R. W., Hamilton-Smith N.. (Edinburgh: University Press; ), 153–166.
  20. Kroll JF, Stewart E. Category interference in translation and picture naming: evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. J. Mem. Lang. 33, 149–174.
    doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1008pubmed: 0google scholar: lookup
  21. Kuipers J-R, La Heij W, Costa A. A further look at semantic context effects in language production: the role of response congruency. Lang. Cogn. Process. 21, 892–919.
    doi: 10.1080/016909600824211google scholar: lookup
  22. Kuperman V, Stadthagen-Gonzalez H, Brysbaert M. Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words.. Behav Res Methods 2012 Dec;44(4):978-90.
    doi: 10.3758/s13428-012-0210-4pubmed: 22581493google scholar: lookup
  23. La Heij W, Dirkx J, Kramer P. Categorical interference and associative priming in picture naming. Br. J. Psychol. 81, 511–525.
  24. La Heij W, Kuipers JR, Starreveld PA. In defense of the lexical-competition account of picture-word interference: a comment on Finkbeiner and Caramazza (2006).. Cortex 2006 Oct;42(7):1028-31; discussion 1032-6.
    doi: 10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70209-0pubmed: 17172183google scholar: lookup
  25. La Heij W, van den Hof E. Picture-word interference increases with target-set size. Psychol. Res. 58, 119–133.
    doi: 10.1007/bf00571100pubmed: 0google scholar: lookup
  26. Levelt WJ, Roelofs A, Meyer AS. A theory of lexical access in speech production.. Behav Brain Sci 1999 Feb;22(1):1-38; discussion 38-75.
    pubmed: 11301520doi: 10.1017/s0140525x99001776google scholar: lookup
  27. Levelt WJ, Schriefers H, Vorberg D, Meyer AS, Pechmann T, Havinga J. The time course of lexical access in speech production: a study of picture naming. Psychol. Rev. 98, 122–142.
    doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.98.1.122google scholar: lookup
  28. Lupker S. The semantic nature of response competition in the picture-word interference task. Mem. Cognit. 7, 485–495.
    doi: 10.3758/bf03198265pubmed: 0google scholar: lookup
  29. Mahon BZ, Costa A, Peterson R, Vargas KA, Caramazza A. Lexical selection is not by competition: a reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm.. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 2007 May;33(3):503-35.
    doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.503pubmed: 17470003google scholar: lookup
  30. McRae K, Cree GS, Seidenberg MS, McNorgan C. Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things.. Behav Res Methods 2005 Nov;37(4):547-59.
    doi: 10.3758/bf03192726pubmed: 16629288google scholar: lookup
  31. Medin DL, Goldstone RL, Markman AB. Comparison and choice: Relations between similarity processes and decision processes.. Psychon Bull Rev 1995 Mar;2(1):1-19.
    doi: 10.3758/bf03214410pubmed: 24203588google scholar: lookup
  32. Moreno-Martínez FJ, Montoro PR. An ecological alternative to Snodgrass & Vanderwart: 360 high quality colour images with norms for seven psycholinguistic variables.. PLoS One 2012;7(5):e37527.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037527pmc: PMC3360784pubmed: 22662166google scholar: lookup
  33. Muehlhaus J, Heim S, Sachs O, Schneider F, Habel U, Sass K. Is the motor or the garage more important to the car? The difference between semantic associations in single word and sentence production.. J Psycholinguist Res 2013 Feb;42(1):37-49.
    doi: 10.1007/s10936-012-9209-3pubmed: 22426517google scholar: lookup
  34. Nelson DL, McEvoy CL, Schreiber TA. The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms.. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 2004 Aug;36(3):402-7.
    doi: 10.3758/BF03195588pubmed: 15641430google scholar: lookup
  35. Piai V, Roelofs A, Schriefers H. Distractor strength and selective attention in picture-naming performance.. Mem Cognit 2012 May;40(4):614-27.
    doi: 10.3758/s13421-011-0171-3pmc: PMC3337410pubmed: 22200912google scholar: lookup
  36. Rahman RA, Melinger A. Semantic context effects in language production: a swinging lexical network proposal and a review. Lang. Cogn. Process. 24, 713–734.
    doi: 10.1080/01690960802597250google scholar: lookup
  37. Randall B, Moss HE, Rodd JM, Greer M, Tyler LK. Distinctiveness and correlation in conceptual structure: behavioral and computational studies.. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 2004 Mar;30(2):393-406.
    doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.393pubmed: 14979813google scholar: lookup
  38. Roelofs A. A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking.. Cognition 1992 Mar;42(1-3):107-42.
    pubmed: 1582154doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(92)90041-fgoogle scholar: lookup
  39. Rosinski RR. Picture-word interference is semantically based. Child Dev. 48, 643–647.
    doi: 10.2307/1128667google scholar: lookup
  40. Sailor K, Brooks PJ. Do part-whole relations produce facilitation in the picture-word interference task?. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove) 2014;67(9):1768-85.
    doi: 10.1080/17470218.2013.870589pubmed: 24303852google scholar: lookup
  41. Schriefers H, Meyer AS, Levelt WJM. Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production - picture-word interference studies. J. Mem. Lang. 29, 86–102.
  42. Starreveld PA, La Heij W. Semantic interference, orthographic facilitation, and their interaction in naming tasks. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 21, 686.
  43. Starreveld PA, La Heij W. Time-course analysis of semantic and orthographic context effects in picture naming. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 22, 896–918.
    doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.22.4.896google scholar: lookup
  44. Szekely A, Jacobsen T, D'Amico S, Devescovi A, Andonova E, Herron D, Lu CC, Pechmann T, Pléh C, Wicha N, Federmeier K, Gerdjikova I, Gutierrez G, Hung D, Hsu J, Iyer G, Kohnert K, Mehotcheva T, Orozco-Figueroa A, Tzeng A, Tzeng O, Arévalo A, Vargha A, Butler AC, Buffington R, Bates E. A new on-line resource for psycholinguistic studies.. J Mem Lang 2004 Aug;51(2):247-250.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.002pmc: PMC3446821pubmed: 23002322google scholar: lookup
  45. Taylor KI, Devereux BJ, Acres K, Randall B, Tyler LK. Contrasting effects of feature-based statistics on the categorisation and basic-level identification of visual objects.. Cognition 2012 Mar;122(3):363-74.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.11.001pmc: PMC3601414pubmed: 22137770google scholar: lookup
  46. van Casteren M, Davis MH. Mix, a program for pseudorandomization.. Behav Res Methods 2006 Nov;38(4):584-9.
    doi: 10.3758/BF03193889pubmed: 17393828google scholar: lookup
  47. Vieth HE, McMahon KL, de Zubicaray GI. Feature overlap slows lexical selection: evidence from the picture-word interference paradigm.. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove) 2014;67(12):2325-39.
    doi: 10.1080/17470218.2014.923922pubmed: 24830335google scholar: lookup
  48. Vigliocco G, Vinson DP, Lewis W, Garrett MF. Representing the meanings of object and action words: the featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis.. Cogn Psychol 2004 Jun;48(4):422-88.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.09.001pubmed: 15099798google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 4 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.