Abstract
Some models of lexical access in language production postulate that lexical-semantic encoding is driven bottom-up, by the conceptual input, and top-down, by a representation of the task. In the cyclic semantic blocking paradigm, participants repeatedly name sets of objects that are either semantically related or unrelated. Whereas the manipulation of semantic relatedness affects lexical-semantic encoding in a bottom-up fashion, the cyclic presentation of small object sets allows participants to bias the corresponding lexical-semantic representations top-down for selection. The role of working memory (WM) in this top-down modulation was investigated by crossing the cyclic semantic blocking paradigm with a manipulation of WM load. Participants’ naming latencies displayed significant effects of semantic context, WM load, and their interaction. A word-naming task using the same materials yielded a main effect of WM load but no significant effects of semantic context or of its interaction with WM load. These and related results are discussed with regard to their implications for models of language production.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Belke, E., Brysbaert, M., Meyer, A. S., & Ghyselinck, M. (2005). Age of acquisition effects in picture naming: Evidence for a lexical-semantic competition hypothesis. Cognition, 96, B45-B54.
Belke, E., Meyer, A. S., & Damian, M. F. (2005). Refractory effects in picture naming as assessed in a semantic blocking paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 667–692.
Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177–208.
Damian, M. F., & Als, L. C. (2005). Long-lasting semantic context effects in the spoken production of object names. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 1372–1384.
Damian, M. F., Vigliocco, G., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2001). Effects of semantic context in the naming of pictures and words. Cognition, 81, B77-B86.
Dell, G. S., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Saffran, E. M., & Gagnon, D. A. (1997). Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychological Review, 104, 801–838.
Howard, D., Nickels, L., Coltheart, M., & Cole-Virtue, J. (2006). Cumulative semantic inhibition in picture naming: Experimental and computational studies. Cognition, 100, 464–482.
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.
Maess, B., Friederici, A. D., Damian, M., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2002). Semantic category interference in overt picture naming: Sharpening current density localization by PCA. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 455–462.
Mahon, B. Z., Costa, A., Peterson, R., Vargas, K. A., & Caramazza, A. (2007). Lexical selection is not by competition: A reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture—word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 503–535.
Martin, R. C. (2006). Semantic short-term memory, language processing, and inhibition. In A. S. Meyer, L. R. Wheeldon, & A. Krott (Eds.), Automaticity and control in language processing (pp. 162–191). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis.
Martin, R. C., Lesch, M. F., & Bartha, M. C. (1999). Independence of input and output phonology in word processing and short-term memory. Journal of Memory & Language, 41, 3–29.
Neely J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264–336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Raaijmakers, J. G. W., Schrijnemakers, J. M. C., & Gremmen, F. (1999). How to deal with “the language-as-fixed-effect fallacy”: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory & Language, 41, 416–426.
Rapp, B., & Goldrick, M. (2000). Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production. Psychological Review, 107, 460–499.
Roelofs, A. (2001). Set size and repetition matter: Comment on Caramazza and Costa (2000). Cognition, 80, 283–290.
Roelofs, A. (2003). Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: Modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. Psychological Review, 110, 88–125.
Schnur, T. T., Schwartz, M. F., Brecher, A., & Hodgson, C. (2006). Semantic interference during blocked-cyclic naming: Evidence from aphasia. Journal of Memory & Language, 54, 199–227.
Thompson-Schill, S. L., & Botvinick, M. M. (2006). Resolving conflict: A response to Martin and Cheng (2006). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 402–408.
Wilshire, C. E., & McCarthy, R. A. (2002). Evidence for a context-sensitive word retrieval disorder in a case of nonfluent aphasia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 19, 165–186.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by a grant from the German Research Council (BE-3176/2-1).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Belke, E. Effects of working memory load on lexical-semantic encoding in language production. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15, 357–363 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.2.357
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.2.357