In defense of the lexical-competition account of picture-word interference: a comment on Finkbeiner and Caramazza (2006).
On the basis of two empirical observations, Finkbeiner and Caramazza (2006) take issue with the generally accepted interpretation of semantic interference in the picture-word interference task in terms of lexical competition. As an alternative, they propose a response-selection account, in which semantic interference is attributed to the time needed to remove the inappropriate (word-reading) response from an output buffer. In this comment we argue that the empirical work discussed provides an interesting challenge for current models of language production, but that the authors' alternative account is at variance with at least three robust empirical findings in the language production literature.
La Heij
Wido
W
Cognitive Psychology Unit, Faculty of Social Sciences, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. laheij@fsw.leidenuniv.nl
Kuipers
Jan-Rouke
JR
Starreveld
Peter A
PA
D002755:Choice Behavior / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D010153:Paired-Associate Learning / Q000502:physiology; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual / Q000502:physiology*; D010470:Perceptual Masking / Q000502:physiology*; D010775:Photic Stimulation; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology*; D012660:Semantics; D013060:Speech / Q000502:physiology*; D013068:Speech Production Measurement; D014705:Verbal Behavior / Q000502:physiology*