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

被引:18
|
作者
Vieth, Harrison E. [1 ]
McMahon, Katie L. [2 ]
de Zubicaray, Greig I. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Queensland, Sch Psychol, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia
[2] Univ Queensland, Ctr Adv Imaging, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia
来源
FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY | 2014年 / 5卷
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
lexical access; competition; semantic interference; picture naming; shared features; distinctive features; PICTURE-WORD INTERFERENCE; SPREADING-ACTIVATION THEORY; SEMANTIC INTERFERENCE; LANGUAGE PRODUCTION; TIME-COURSE; SINGLE WORD; COMPETITION; CATEGORIZATION; FACILITATION; SIMILARITY;
D O I
10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01014
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Open Access vs. HaMiPla
    Giunta, R. E.
    HANDCHIRURGIE MIKROCHIRURGIE PLASTISCHE CHIRURGIE, 2014, 46 (02) : 71 - 72
  • [22] Transitional Cell Carcinoma of Upper Urinary Tract vs. Benign Lesions: Distinctive MSCT Features Comment
    Siegel, Cary
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2009, 182 (06): : 2642 - 2643
  • [23] Distinctive Roles of mTORC1 Vs. mTORC2 in Liver Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury
    Zhou, H.
    Zhu, J.
    Yue, S.
    Zhang, M.
    Busuttil, R.
    Xia, Q.
    Kupiec-Weglinski, J.
    Zhai, Y.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2015, 15
  • [24] Semantic verb classes and lexical conceptual structures for enhancing the conceptual modelling and the access to databases
    SaintDizier, P
    DATA & KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING, 1997, 21 (02) : 197 - 211
  • [25] Sudden fetal and infant deaths: Shared characteristics and distinctive features
    Fifer, WP
    Myers, MM
    SEMINARS IN PERINATOLOGY, 2002, 26 (01) : 89 - 96
  • [26] A comparison of upper vs. lower and right vs. left visual fields using lexical decision
    Goldstein, A
    Babkoff, H
    QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY SECTION A-HUMAN EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2001, 54 (04): : 1239 - 1259
  • [27] Learner vs. professional translations into Russian: Lexical profiles
    Kunilovskaya, Maria
    Morgoun, Natalia
    Pariy, Alexey
    TRANSLATION & INTERPRETING-THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETING, 2018, 10 (01): : 33 - 52
  • [28] Neural correlates of rhyming vs. lexical and semantic fluency
    Kircher, Tilo
    Nagels, Arne
    Kirner-Veselinovic, Andre
    Krach, Soeren
    BRAIN RESEARCH, 2011, 1391 : 71 - 80
  • [29] Lexical vs. phrasal pitch contours in early production
    Ota, M
    BUCLD 27: ANNUAL BOSTON UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE ON LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT, VOLS 1 AND 2, PROCEEDINGS, 2003, : 591 - 602
  • [30] The distribution of generic objects: Lexical semantics vs. pragmatics
    Byrne, W
    DISCOURSE AND COGNITION: BRIDGING THE GAP, 1998, : 353 - 364