The distractor lexicality effect in the picture–word interference task
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22394/2412-9410-2019-5-1-8-24Keywords:
Stroop effect, cognitive control, automatization theory, picture-word interference test, distractor lexicality effectAbstract
In color–word and picture–word interference (PWI) tests, participants perform a speeded naming of target stimuli (colors or images) while ignoring distractors. In a number of studies, it has been shown that pseudoword distractors diminish the target naming latencies compared with high–frequency words (the distractor lexicality effect). However, some further studies have failed to replicate this effect. Moreover, in several studies the effect had an opposite direction: pseudoword distractors increased the target naming latencies. Analysis of available literature has led us to conclude that the effect's direction can depend on two factors: either on the type of interference test (color–word or picture–word interference tests) or on the method of pseudowords' creation (changing the words of natural language or generating them using a computer program). In the present study, we tested the hypothesis that the distractor lexicality effect depends on the type of interference test. In two PWI experiments, pseudowords created from the words of natural language reduced the picture naming latencies compared with high-frequency words. Since similar results were obtained in studies using the color–word interference test, we conclude that the distractor lexicality effect does not depend on the type of interference paradigm. The results we obtained contradict fndings of E. Dhooge and R. J. Hartsuiker (2012). In their PWI experiments, the distractor lexicality effect had an opposite direction. We explain the contradiction between experimental results by the fact that E. Dhooge and R. J. Hartsuiker generated pseudoword stimuli using the computer program WordGen, while in our study pseudowords were made from the real words of the Russian language. Thus, the method of pseudowords' creation may be a critical determinant of the distractor lexicality effect in the PWI paradigm.Downloads
References
Аллахвердов В. М., Аллахвердов М. В. О чем проще не думать? (О природе струп-интерференции) // Шаги / Steps. 2015. Т. 1. №. 1. 2015. С. 122-137.
Ляшевская О. Н., Шаров С. А. Частотный словарь современного русского языка (на материалах Национального корпуса русского языка). М.: Азбуковник, 2009.
Сопов М. С. Феномен Струп-интерференции в контексте теорий лексического доступа // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. [Сер.] Психология и педагогика. Т. 8. №. 1. 2018. С. 47-69.
Augustinova M., Ferrand L. Automaticity of word reading: Evidence from the semantic Stroop paradigm // Current Directions in Psychological Science. Vol. 23. No. 5. 2014. P. 343-348.
Bakan P., Alperson B. Pronounceability, attensity, and interference in the color-word test // The American Journal of Psychology. Vol. 80. No. 3. P. 416-420.
Boersma P., Weenink D. Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.3. 51). [Computer program]. 2013. URL: http://www.praat.org.
Brodeur M. B., Guérard K., Bouras M. Bank of standardized stimuli (BOSS) phase II: 930 new normative photos // PLoS One. Vol. 9. No. 9. 2014. e106953.
Burt J. S. Why do non-color words interfere with color naming? // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. Vol. 28. No 5. 2002. P. 1019-1038.
De Soto J. L., De Soto C. B. Reading achievement and automatic recognition of words and pseudowords // Journal of Reading Behavior. Vol. 17. No. 2. 1985. P. 115-127.
Dell'Acqua R., Job R., Peressotti F., Pascali A. The picture-word interference effect is not a Stroop effect // Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Vol. 14. No. 4. P. 717-722.
Dhooge E., Hartsuiker R. J. Lexical selection and verbal selfmonitoring: Effects of lexicality, context, and time pressure in picture-word interference // Journal of Memory and Language. Vol. 66. No. 1. 2012. P. 163-176.
Guttentag R. E., Haith M. M. Automatic processing as a function of age and reading ability // Child Development. Vol. 49. No. 3. 1978. P. 707-716.
Jensen A. R., Rohwer Jr W. D. The Stroop color-word test: A review // Acta Psychologica. Vol. 25. No. 1. 1966. P. 36-93.
Kinoshita S., De Wit B., Norris D. The magic of words reconsidered: Investigating the automaticity of reading color-neutral words in the Stroop task // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Vol. 43. No. 3. 2017. P. 369- 384.
Klein G. S. Semantic power measured through the interference of words with colornaming // The American Journal of Psychology. Vol. 77. No 4. 1964. P. 576-588.
Logan G. D. Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data // Cognitive Psychology. Vol. 12. No. 4. 1980. P. 523-553.
Lupker S. J. The semantic nature of response competition in the picture-word interference task // Memory & Cognition. Vol. 7. No. 6. 1979. P. 485-495.
Lupker S. J. The role of phonetic and orthographic similarity in picture-word interference // Canadian Journal of Psychology = Revue Canadienne de Psychologie. Vol. 36. No. 3. 1982. P. 349-367. 21 Шаги / Steps. Т. 5. № 1. 2019
Lupker S. J., Sanders M. Visual-field differences in picture-word interference // Brain and Cognition. Vol. 1. No. 4. 1982. P. 381-398.
Megherbi H., Elbro C., Oakhill J., Segui J., New B. The emergence of automaticity in reading: Effects of orthographic depth and word decoding ability on an adjusted Stroop measure // Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. Vol. 166. 2018. P. 652-663.
Miozzo M., Caramazza A. When more is less: A counterintuitive effect of distractor frequency in the picture-word interference paradigm // Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Vol. 132. No. 2. 2003. P. 228-252.
Monsell S., Taylor T. J., Murphy K. Naming the color of a word: Is it responses or task sets that compete? // Memory & Cognition. Vol. 29. No. 1. 2001. P. 137-151.
psychophysics software in Python // Journal of Neuroscience Methods. Vol. 162. No. 1-2. 2007. P. 8-13.
Shiffrin R. M., Schneider W. Controlled and automatic human information processing. II: Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory // Psychological Review. Vol. 84. No. 2. 1977. P. 127-190.
Starreveld P. A., La Heij W. Picture-word interference is a Stroop effect: A theoretical analysis and new empirical findings // Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Vol. 24. No. 3. 2017. P. 721-733.
Stroop J. R. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions // Journal of Experimental Psychology. Vol. 18. No. 6. 1935. P. 643-662. Van Maanen, Van Rijn 2008 -Van Maanen L., Van Rijn H. The picture-word interference effect is a Stroop effect after all // Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Vol. 30. No. 30. 2008. P. 645-650.
Yap M. J., Sibley D. E., Balota D. A., Ratcliff R., Rueckl J. Responding to nonwords in the lexical decision task: Insights from the English Lexicon Project // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Vol. 41. No. 3. 2015. P. 597-613.
