Top

Psychological Research

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in:

20-03-2020 | Original Article

Phonological encoding is free from orthographic influence: evidence from a picture variant of the phonological Stroop task

Auteurs: Sachiko Kinoshita, Rinus G. Verdonschot

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2021

Abstract

The phonological Stroop task, in which the participant names the color of written distractors, is being used increasingly to study the phonological encoding process in speech production. A brief review of experimental paradigms used to study the phonological encoding process indicated that currently it is not known whether the onset overlap benefit (faster color naming when the distractor shares the onset segment with the color name) in a phonological Stroop task is due to phonology or orthography. The present paper investigated this question using a picture variant of the phonological Stroop task. Participants named a small set of line drawings of animals (e.g., camel) with a pseudoword distractor printed on it. Picture naming was facilitated when the distractor shared the onset segment with the picture name regardless of orthographic overlap (CUST–camel = KUST–camel < NUST–camel). We conclude that the picture variant of the phonological Stroop task is a useful tool to study the phonological encoding process, free of orthographic influence.

vorige artikel Correction to: Case mixing impedes early lexical access: converging evidence from the masked priming paradigm

volgende artikel Presuppositions of determiners are immediately used to disambiguate utterance meaning: A mouse-tracking study on the German language

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Starreveld and La Heij’s (2017) paper was in direct opposition to Dell’Aqua, Job, Peressotti and Pascali (2007) who titled their paper “The picture–word interference effect is not a Stroop effect”. In brief, Starreveld and La Heij noted that the results observed by Dell’Aqua et al. and taken as evidence for the dissociation between the two tasks have not been replicated in two later studies, and that the difference is likely to have been due to the methodological differences between the two tasks as they are standardly used. In particular, in the classic Stroop task, but not in the PWI task, only few targets selected from a single semantic category (colors) are used, and the distractors are also drawn from this category. Readers are referred to Starreveld and La Heij (2017) for further detail.

Note that the orthographic (graphemic) overlap is not the same as letter overlap. Specifically, the vowel segment in “seal” is pronounced /i:/ and orthographically represented by the grapheme “ea”, and not “e” (/ɛ/) as in SELP. We deemed SELP, SELM, and SELG (for seal) as acceptable for this reason.

This pattern of finding (CUST = KUST < NUST when naming “camel”) has since been replicated (Kinoshita & Mills, 2020). That study further found no difference between the three distractor conditions (CUST = KUST = NUST) when the response was a manual key press response and did not involve a speech response, consistent with the claim that the effect of onset overlap benefit originates in the phonological encoding process.

In contrast, picture targets used by Lupker (1982) were selected from a children’s coloring book, and the names of some of the pictures (e.g., “fire”) may have been more ambiguous, which may have contributed to the greater role of the name retrieval process.

In this context, we remind the readers that others (e.g., Geng et al., 2014; Shitova et al., 2016) have also noted a substantial reduction in picture naming latency when a small set of pictures is used repeatedly.

Alario, X. F., Perre, L., Castel, C., & Ziegler, J. C. (2007). The role of orthography in speech production revisited. Cognition, 102, 464–545. CrossRef

Bates, D. M., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2018). Lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using 'Eigen' and S4. Version 1.1-17.

Bowers, J. S., Vigliocco, G., & Haan, R. (1998). Orthographic, phonological, and articulatory contributions to masked letter and word priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1705–1719. PubMed

Coltheart, M., Woollams, A., Kinoshita, S., & Perry, C. (1999). A position-sensitive Stroop effect: Further evidence for a left-to-right component in print-to-speech conversion. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 456–463. CrossRef

Damian, M., & Bowers, J. (2003). Effects of orthography on speech production in a form-preparation paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 119–132. CrossRef

Dell’Acqua, R., Job, R., Peressotti, F., & Pascali, A. (2007). The picture–word interference effect is not a Stroop effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 717–722. CrossRef

Dimitropoulou, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., & Carreiras, M. (2010). Influence of prime lexicality, frequency, and pronounceability on the masked onset priming effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1813–1837. CrossRef

Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1991). The density constraint on form- priming in the naming task: Interference effects from a masked prime. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 1–25. CrossRef

Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods Instruments and Computers, 35, 116–124. CrossRef

Geng, J., Schnur, T. T., & Janssen, N. (2014). Relative speed of processing affects interference in Stroop and picture–word interference paradigms: Evidence from the distractor frequency effect. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 1100–1114. CrossRef

Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446. CrossRef

Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.

Kinoshita, S. (2000). The left-to-right nature of the masked onset priming effect in naming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 133–141. CrossRef

Kinoshita, S., & Mills, L. (2020). Phonological encoding in the oral but not manual Stroop task: Evidence for the role of a speech production process. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000828. CrossRef

Kureta, Y., Fushimi, T., & Tatsumi, I. F. (2006). The functional unit in phonological encoding: Evidence for moraic representation in native Japanese speakers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1102–1119. PubMed

Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2018). lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Version 3.0-1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest. Accessed 02 July 2018.

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.

Lupker, S. J. (1982). The role of phonetic and orthographic similarity in picture–word interference. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36, 349–376. CrossRef

Meyer, A. S. (1990). The time course of phonological encoding in language production: The encoding of successive syllables of a word. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 524–545. CrossRef

Meyer, A. S. (1991). The time course of phonological encoding in language production: Phonological encoding inside a syllable. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 69–89. CrossRef

Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N. (2018). BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs. R package version 0.9.12-4.1. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BayesFactor. Accessed 02 July 2018.

Mousikou, P., Rastle, K., Besner, D., & Coltheart, M. (2015). The locus of serial processing in reading aloud: Orthography-to-phonology computation or speech planning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 41, 1076–1099.

O’Seaghdha, P. G., Chen, J.-Y., & Chen, T.-M. (2010). Proximate units in word production: Phonological encoding begins with syllables in Mandarin Chinese but with segments in English. Cognition, 115, 282–302. CrossRef

Qu, Q., & Damian, M. (2019). Orthographic effects in Mandarin spoken language production. Memory & Cognition, 47, 326–334. CrossRef

R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 02 July 2018.

Roelofs, A. (2004). Seriality of phonological encoding in naming objects and reading their names. Memory & Cognition, 32, 212–222. CrossRef

Roelofs, A. (2006). The influence of spelling on phonological encoding in word reading, object naming, and word generation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 33–37. CrossRef

Schiller, N. O. (2004). The onset effect in word naming. Journal of Memory & Language, 50, 477–490. CrossRef

Schiller, N. O. (2007). Phonology and orthography in reading aloud. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 460–465. CrossRef

Schiller, N. O. (2008). The masked onset priming effect in picture naming. Cognition, 106, 952–962. CrossRef

Shitova, N., Roelofs, A., Schriefers, H., Bastiaansen, M., & Schoffelen, J.-M. (2016). Using brain potentials to functionally localise Stroop-like effects in colour and picture naming: Perceptual encoding versus word planning. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161052. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(2), 174–215.

Starreveld, P. A., & La Heij, W. (2017). Picture-word interference is a Stroop effect: A theoretical analysis and new empirical findings. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 721–733. CrossRef

Verdonschot, R. G., & Kinoshita, S. (2018). Mora or more? The phonological unit of Japanese word production in the Stroop color naming task. Memory & Cognition, 46, 410–425. CrossRef

Titel: Phonological encoding is free from orthographic influence: evidence from a picture variant of the phonological Stroop task
Auteurs: Sachiko Kinoshita
Rinus G. Verdonschot
Publicatiedatum: 20-03-2020
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2021
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01315-2

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2021

Does temporal predictability of tasks influence task choice?

Correction to: Case mixing impedes early lexical access: converging evidence from the masked priming paradigm

Given that the detailed original criteria for deliberate practice have not changed, could the understanding of this complex concept have improved over time? A response to Macnamara and Hambrick (2020)

Case mixing impedes early lexical access: converging evidence from the masked priming paradigm

Neutral stimuli and pupillometric task conflict

Power of instructions for task implementation: superiority of explicitly instructed over inferred rules