title: Activation of distractor names in the picture-picture interference paradigm.
abstract: In four experiments, participants named target pictures that were accompanied by distractor pictures with phonologically related or unrelated names. Across experiments, the type of phonological relationship between the targets and the related distractors was varied: They were homophones (e.g., bat [animal/baseball]), or they shared word-initial segments (e.g., dog-doll) or word-final segments (e.g., ball-wall). The participants either named the objects after an extensive familiarization and practice phase or without any familiarization or practice. In all of the experiments, the mean target-naming latency was shorter in the related than in the unrelated condition, demonstrating that the phonological form of the name of the distractor picture became activated. These results are best explained within a cascaded model of lexical access--that is, under the assumption that the recognition of an object leads to the activation of its name.
authors: School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England. a.s.meyer@bham.ac.uk
authors: Antje S
authors: AS
authors: Meyer
authors: Markus F
authors: MF
authors: Damian
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001288:Attention; D002648:Child; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009275:Names; D011930:Reaction Time; D014796:Visual Perception
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2003 Mar;10(1):111-7
references: 12747497
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001 Nov;27(6):1430-50
references: 11713878
references: Mem Cognit. 2004 Mar;32(2):212-22
references: 15190714
references: Cognition. 1992 Mar;42(1-3):107-42
references: 1582154
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 May;28(3):555-63
references: 12018507
references: Cognition. 1994 Nov;53(2):91-127
references: 7805353
references: Q J Exp Psychol A. 2005 May;58(4):667-92
references: 16104101
references: Behav Brain Sci. 1999 Feb;22(1):1-38; discussion 38-75
references: 11301520
references: Cogn Neuropsychol. 2004 Dec 1;21(8):840-66
references: 21038236
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Learn. 1980 Mar;6(2):174-215
references: 7373248
references: Cognition. 2005 Feb;95(1):31-71
references: 15629473
references: Percept Psychophys. 2003 Jan;65(1):58-71
references: 12699309
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 May;29(3):432-8
references: 12776753
references: Vision Res. 2000;40(10-12):1469-87
references: 10788653
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1999 Mar;25(2):345-61
references: 10093206
references: Psychol Rev. 1997 Jan;104(1):123-47
references: 9009882
references: Psychol Sci. 2003 Jan;14(1):86-90
references: 12564760
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 May;31(3):428-42
references: 15910129
references: Q J Exp Psychol A. 2002 Apr;55(2):465-83
references: 12047054
references: Brain Lang. 2005 Jul;94(1):94-103
references: 15896387
references: Psychol Bull. 1993 Nov;114(3):510-32
references: 8272468
references: Cognition. 1997 Sep;64(3):249-84
references: 9426503
references: Behav Brain Sci. 2001 Jun;24(3):453-76; discussion 476-509
references: 11682799
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2002 Aug;28(4):868-83
references: 12190255
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000 Sep;26(5):1283-96
references: 11009258
references: Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2003 Feb;15(3):261-76
references: 12527100
references: Psychol Rev. 2000 Jul;107(3):460-99
references: 10941277
references: Psychol Rev. 1986 Jul;93(3):283-321
references: 3749399
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 1999 Jun;3(6):223-232
references: 10354575
references: Br J Psychol. 1992 Aug;83 ( Pt 3):375-88
references: 1393367
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 Jan;30(1):278-82
references: 14736312