Publications

Abstract

Speakers sometimes produce lexical errors, such as saying “salt” instead of “pepper.” This study aimed to better understand the origin of lexical errors by assessing whether they arise from a hasty selection and premature decision to speak (premature selection hypothesis) or from momentary attentional disengagement from the task (attentional lapse hypothesis). We analyzed data from a speeded picture naming task (Lampe et al., 2023) and investigated whether lexical errors are produced as fast as target (i.e., correct) responses, thus arising from premature selection, or whether they are produced more slowly than target responses, thus arising from lapses of attention. Using ex-Gaussian analyses, we found that lexical errors were slower than targets in the tail, but not in the normal part of the response time distribution, with the tail effect primarily resulting from errors that were not coordinates, that is, members of the target’s semantic category. Moreover, we compared the coordinate errors and target responses in terms of their word-intrinsic properties and found that they were overall more frequent, shorter, and acquired earlier than targets. Given the present findings, we conclude that coordinate errors occur due to a premature selection but in the context of intact attentional control, following the same lexical constraints as targets, while other errors, given the variability in their nature, may vary in their origin, with one potential source being lapses of attention.

Abstract

In conversation, speech planning can overlap with listening to the interlocutor. It has been
postulated that once there is enough information to formulate a response, planning is initiated
and the response is maintained in working memory. Concurrently, the auditory input is
monitored for the turn end such that responses can be launched promptly. In three EEG
experiments, we aimed to identify the neural signature of phonological planning and monitoring
by comparing delayed responding to not responding (reading aloud, repetition and lexical
decision). These comparisons consistently resulted in a sustained positivity and beta power
reduction over posterior regions. We argue that these effects reflect attention to the sequence
end. Phonological planning and maintenance were not detected in the neural signature even
though it is highly likely these were taking place. This suggests that EEG must be used cautiously
to identify response planning when the neural signal is overridden by attention effects

Abstract

Changes in brain organization following damage are commonly observed, but they remain poorly understood. These changes are often studied with imaging techniques that overlook the temporal granularity at which language processes occur. By contrast, electrophysiological measures provide excellent temporal resolution. To test the suitability of magnetoencephalography (MEG) to track language-related neuroplasticity, the present study aimed at establishing the spectro-temporo-spatial across-session consistency of context-driven picture naming in healthy individuals, using MEG in two test–retest sessions. Spectro-temporo-spatial test–retest consistency in a healthy population is a prerequisite for studying neuronal changes in clinical populations over time. For this purpose, 15 healthy speakers were tested with MEG while performing a context-driven picture-naming task at two time points. Participants read a sentence missing the final word and named a picture completing the sentence. Sentences were constrained or unconstrained toward the picture, such that participants could either retrieve the picture name through sentence context (constrained sentences), or could only name it after the picture appeared (unconstrained sentences). The context effect (constrained versus unconstrained) in picture-naming times had a strong effect size and high across-session consistency. The context MEG results revealed alpha–beta power decreases (10–20 Hz) in the left temporal and inferior parietal lobule that were consistent across both sessions. As robust spectro-temporo-spatial findings in a healthy population are required for working toward longitudinal patient studies, we conclude that using context-driven language production and MEG is a suitable way to examine language-related neuroplasticity after brain damage.

Abstract

Flexible language use requires coordinated functioning of two systems: conceptual representations and control. The interaction between the two systems can be observed when people are asked to match a word to a picture. Participants are slower and less accurate for related word-picture pairs (word: banana, picture: apple) relative to unrelated pairs (word: banjo, picture: apple). The mechanism underlying interference however is still unclear. We analyzed word-picture matching (WPM) performance of patients with stroke-induced lesions to the left-temporal (N = 5) or left-frontal cortex (N = 5) and matched controls (N = 12) using the drift diffusion model (DDM). In DDM, the process of making a decision is described as the stochastic accumulation of evidence towards a response. The parameters of the DDM model that characterize this process are decision threshold, drift rate, starting point and non-decision time, each of which bears cognitive interpretability. We compared the estimated model parameters from controls and patients to investigate the mechanisms of WPM interference. WPM performance in controls was explained by the amount of information needed to make a decision (decision threshold): a higher threshold was associated with related word-picture pairs relative to unrelated ones. No difference was found in the quality of the evidence (drift rate). This suggests an executive rather than semantic mechanism underlying WPM interference. Both patients with temporal and frontal lesions exhibited both increased drift rate and decision threshold for unrelated pairs relative to related ones. Left-frontal and temporal damage affected the computations required by WPM similarly, resulting in systematic deficits across lexical-semantic memory and executive functions. These results support a diverse but interactive role of lexical-semantic memory and semantic control mechanisms.

Abstract

Disagreement exists about whether lexical selection in word production is a competitive process. Competition predicts semanticinterference from distractor words in immediate but not in delayed picture naming. In contrast, Janssen, Schirm, Mahon, and Caramazza (2008) obtained semanticinterference in delayed picture naming when participants had to decide between picture naming and oral reading depending on the distractor word’s colour. We report three experiments that examined the role of such taskdecisions. In a single-task situation requiring picture naming only (Experiment 1), we obtained semanticinterference in immediate but not in delayednaming. In a task-decision situation (Experiments 2 and 3), no semantic effects were obtained in immediate and delayed picture naming and word reading using either the materials of Experiment 1 or the materials of Janssen et al. (2008). We present an attentional account in which taskdecisions may hide or reveal semanticinterference from lexical competition depending on the amount of parallelism between task-decision and picture–word processing.

Abstract

E. Dhooge and R. J. Hartsuiker (2010) reported experiments showing that picture naming takes longer with low- than high-frequency distractor words, replicating M. Miozzo and A. Caramazza (2003). In addition, they showed that this distractor-frequency effect disappears when distractors are masked or preexposed. These findings were taken to refute models like WEAVER++ (A. Roelofs, 2003) in which words are selected by competition. However, Dhooge and Hartsuiker do not take into account that according to this model, picture-word interference taps not only into word production but also into attentional processes. Here, the authors indicate that WEAVER++ contains an attentional mechanism that accounts for the distractor-frequency effect (A. Roelofs, 2005). Moreover, the authors demonstrate that the model accounts for the influence of masking and preexposure, and does so in a simpler way than the response exclusion through self-monitoring account advanced by Dhooge and Hartsuiker

Abstract

It has been argued that inhibition is a mechanism of attentional control in bilingual language performance. Evidence suggests that effects of inhibition are largest in the tail of a response time (RT) distribution in non-linguistic and monolingual performance domains. We examined this for bilingual performance by conducting delta-plot analyses of naming RTs. Dutch-English bilingual speakers named pictures using English while trying to ignore superimposed neutral Xs or Dutch distractor words that were semantically related, unrelated, or translations. The mean RTs revealed semantic, translation, and lexicality effects. The delta plots leveled off with increasing RT, more so when the mean distractor effect was smaller as compared with larger. This suggests that the influence of inhibition is largest toward the distribution tail, corresponding to what is observed in other performance domains. Moreover, the delta plots suggested that more inhibition was applied by high- than low-proficiency individuals in the unrelated than the other distractor conditions. These results support the view that inhibition is a domain-general mechanism that may be optionally engaged depending on the prevailing circumstances.

Abstract

E. Dhooge and R. J. Hartsuiker (2010) reported experiments showing that picture naming takes longer with low- than high-frequency distractor words, replicating M. Miozzo and A. Caramazza (2003). In addition, they showed that this distractor-frequency effect disappears when distractors are masked or preexposed. These findings were taken to refute models like WEAVER++ (A. Roelofs, 2003) in which words are selected by competition. However, Dhooge and Hartsuiker do not take into account that according to this model, picture-word interference taps not only into word production but also into attentional processes. Here, the authors indicate that WEAVER++ contains an attentional mechanism that accounts for the distractor-frequency effect (A. Roelofs, 2005). Moreover, the authors demonstrate that the model accounts for the influence of masking and preexposure, and does so in a simpler way than the response exclusion through self-monitoring account advanced by Dhooge and Hartsuiker