AI帮你理解科学

AI 生成解读视频

AI抽取解析论文重点内容自动生成视频


pub
生成解读视频

AI 溯源

AI解析本论文相关学术脉络


Master Reading Tree
生成 溯源树

AI 精读

AI抽取本论文的概要总结


微博一下
I have shown that the ®ndings of C&C, and all previous ®ndings that support the WEAVER11 model, can be accounted for by assuming that short-term memory for responses is of limited-capacity and that memory improves with response repetition

Set size and repetition matter: comment on Caramazza and Costa (2000).

Cognition, no. 3 (2001): 283-290

被引用38|浏览6
WOS EI
下载 PDF 全文
引用
微博一下

摘要

Caramazza and Costa, 2000 (Cognition 75, B51–B64) report three picture-word interference experiments testing the response set mechanism of the WEAVER++ model of spoken word production. They argue that their findings are problematic for WEAVER++ and that the model's architecture needs to be changed. I show that there is no need to fundamen...更多

代码

数据

0
简介
  • Caramazza and Costa (2000), C&C, report three picture-word interference experiments testing the WEAVER11 model of spoken word production (e.g. Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999; Roelofs, 1992, 1993, 1997).
  • In Experiments 1 and 2, semantic inhibition effects on picture naming latencies were obtained from distractor words that were not part of the response set and with one picture per semantic domain.
  • In Experiment 3, the size of the semantic inhibition effect did not differ between response and non-response distractor words.
重点内容
  • Caramazza and Costa (2000), C&C, report three picture-word interference experiments testing the WEAVER11 model of spoken word production (e.g. Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999; Roelofs, 1992, 1993, 1997)
  • In Experiments 1 and 2, semantic inhibition effects on picture naming latencies were obtained from distractor words that were not part of the response set and with one picture per semantic domain
  • In Experiment 3, the size of the semantic inhibition effect did not differ between response and non-response distractor words
  • If C&C's participants did not keep a response set in memory, semantic inhibition effects on picture naming are to be expected even when the distractor words are not permitted responses and when there is only a single picture per semantic domain
  • I have shown that the ®ndings of C&C, and all previous ®ndings that support the WEAVER11 model, can be accounted for by assuming that short-term memory for responses is of limited-capacity and that memory improves with response repetition (Levelt et al, 1999)
结果
  • To account for the difference in semantic effect between naming and categorizing, inhibition versus facilitation, it was assumed that response selection can be limited to a restricted set of words.
  • Semantic facilitation effects have been obtained from non-response distractors in picture naming in subsequent studies (Roelofs, 1992, 1993), con®rming predictions of the model.
  • C&C obtained semantic inhibition rather than facilitation from distractors that are not responses, in contrast to what Glaser and DuÈngelhoff (1984), Glaser and Glaser (1989), and Roelofs (1992, 1993) observed.
  • If C&C's participants did not keep a response set in memory, semantic inhibition effects on picture naming are to be expected even when the distractor words are not permitted responses and when there is only a single picture per semantic domain.
  • Empirical support for the role of the number of responses and repetitions in establishing a response set in memory comes from picture-word interference experiments by La Heij and Van den Hof (1995).
  • La Heij and Van den Hof obtained no semantic effect at all in the small nor in the large set condition, replicating the results for SOA ˆ 0 and 1100 ms of Roelofs (1992, 1993) and the ®ndings for picture categorizing of Glaser and DuÈngelhoff (1984), but contrary to what C&C observed.
  • This explains why the non-response distractors yielded no semantic effect at all, replicating the ®ndings for SOA ˆ 0 and 1100 ms of Roelofs (1992, 1993) and Glaser and DuÈngelhoff (1984).
  • The set size and repetition analysis explains the earlier observed semantic inhibition effects from written and spoken distractors that were mentioned by C&C, which were typically obtained with over 20 responses.
结论
  • Elsewhere (Roelofs, 1992, 1993), the author argueds that these ®ndings can be explained by assuming that the non-response distractors indirectly activated response set competitors and yielded mediated semantic effects.
  • If the potential responses are adogo and acato and a pictured dog has to be named, distractor word a®sho may yield semantic inhibition by activating the lemma of acato via the conceptual network.
  • The ®ndings of C&C point to the need to further examine exactly under what conditions a response set is established in memory, but the data do not refute the response set mechanism in WEAVER11 per se
引用论文
  • Caramazza, A., & Costa, A. (2000). The semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm: Does the response set matter? Cognition, 75, B51±B64.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Damian, M. K., & Martin, R. C. (1999). Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 345±361.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Glaser, W. R., & DuÈngelhoff, F.-J. (1984). The time course of picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 640±654.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Glaser, W. R., & Glaser, M. O. (1989). Context effects in Stroop-like word and picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 13±42.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • La Heij, W. (1988). Components of Stroop-like interference in picture naming. Memory & Cognition, 16, 400±410.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • La Heij, W., & Van den Hof, E. (1995). Picture-word interference increases with target-set size. Psychological Research, 58, 119±133.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1±38.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Lupker, S. J. (1979). The semantic nature of response competition in the picture-word interference task. Memory & Cognition, 7, 485±495.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163±203.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42, 107±142.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Roelofs, A. (1993). Testing a non-decompositional theory of lemma retrieval in speaking: Retrieval of verbs. Cognition, 47, 59±87.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Roelofs, A. (1997). The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition, 64, 249±284.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
作者
您的评分 :
0

 

标签
评论
数据免责声明
页面数据均来自互联网公开来源、合作出版商和通过AI技术自动分析结果,我们不对页面数据的有效性、准确性、正确性、可靠性、完整性和及时性做出任何承诺和保证。若有疑问,可以通过电子邮件方式联系我们:report@aminer.cn
小科