Do words compete as we speak? A systematic review of picture-word interference (PWI) studies investigating the nature of lexical selection
This review synthesizes findings from 117 studies that have manipulated various picture-word interference (PWI) task properties to establish whether semantic context effects reflect competitive word retrieval, or are driven by noncompetitive processes. Manipulations of several PWI task parameters (e...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Sciendo
2024-01-01
|
| Series: | Psychology of Language and Communication |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.58734/plc-2024-0011 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832570269546315776 |
|---|---|
| author | Korko Małgorzata Bose Arpita Jones Alexander Coulson Mark de Mornay Davies Paul |
| author_facet | Korko Małgorzata Bose Arpita Jones Alexander Coulson Mark de Mornay Davies Paul |
| author_sort | Korko Małgorzata |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This review synthesizes findings from 117 studies that have manipulated various picture-word interference (PWI) task properties to establish whether semantic context effects reflect competitive word retrieval, or are driven by noncompetitive processes. Manipulations of several PWI task parameters (e.g., distractor visibility) have produced contradictory findings. Evidence derived from other manipulations (e.g., visual similarity between targets and distractors) has been scarce. Some of the manipulations that have furnished reliable effects (e.g., distractor taboo interference) do not discriminate between the rival theories. Interference from nonverbal distractors has been shown to be a genuine effect dependent on adequate lexicalization of interfering stimuli. This supports the swinging lexical network hypothesis and the selection-by-competition-with-competition-threshold hypothesis while undermining one of the assumptions of the response exclusion hypothesis. The contribution of pre-lexical processes, such as an interaction between distractor processing and conceptual encoding of the target to the overall semantic context effect is far from settled. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-34d8b8b20409417bb463825f5f301947 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2083-8506 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-01-01 |
| publisher | Sciendo |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Psychology of Language and Communication |
| spelling | doaj-art-34d8b8b20409417bb463825f5f3019472025-02-02T15:49:16ZengSciendoPsychology of Language and Communication2083-85062024-01-0128126132210.58734/plc-2024-0011Do words compete as we speak? A systematic review of picture-word interference (PWI) studies investigating the nature of lexical selectionKorko Małgorzata0Bose Arpita1Jones Alexander2Coulson Mark3de Mornay Davies Paul41The Institute of Education, The Maria Grzegorzewska University, Poland2School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, United Kingdom3Department of Psychology, School of Science and Technology, Middlesex University, United Kingdom4University of West London, School of Human and Social Sciences, United Kingdom3Department of Psychology, School of Science and Technology, Middlesex University, United KingdomThis review synthesizes findings from 117 studies that have manipulated various picture-word interference (PWI) task properties to establish whether semantic context effects reflect competitive word retrieval, or are driven by noncompetitive processes. Manipulations of several PWI task parameters (e.g., distractor visibility) have produced contradictory findings. Evidence derived from other manipulations (e.g., visual similarity between targets and distractors) has been scarce. Some of the manipulations that have furnished reliable effects (e.g., distractor taboo interference) do not discriminate between the rival theories. Interference from nonverbal distractors has been shown to be a genuine effect dependent on adequate lexicalization of interfering stimuli. This supports the swinging lexical network hypothesis and the selection-by-competition-with-competition-threshold hypothesis while undermining one of the assumptions of the response exclusion hypothesis. The contribution of pre-lexical processes, such as an interaction between distractor processing and conceptual encoding of the target to the overall semantic context effect is far from settled.https://doi.org/10.58734/plc-2024-0011picture word interferencelexical selectionlanguage production,competition |
| spellingShingle | Korko Małgorzata Bose Arpita Jones Alexander Coulson Mark de Mornay Davies Paul Do words compete as we speak? A systematic review of picture-word interference (PWI) studies investigating the nature of lexical selection Psychology of Language and Communication picture word interference lexical selection language production,competition |
| title | Do words compete as we speak? A systematic review of picture-word interference (PWI) studies investigating the nature of lexical selection |
| title_full | Do words compete as we speak? A systematic review of picture-word interference (PWI) studies investigating the nature of lexical selection |
| title_fullStr | Do words compete as we speak? A systematic review of picture-word interference (PWI) studies investigating the nature of lexical selection |
| title_full_unstemmed | Do words compete as we speak? A systematic review of picture-word interference (PWI) studies investigating the nature of lexical selection |
| title_short | Do words compete as we speak? A systematic review of picture-word interference (PWI) studies investigating the nature of lexical selection |
| title_sort | do words compete as we speak a systematic review of picture word interference pwi studies investigating the nature of lexical selection |
| topic | picture word interference lexical selection language production,competition |
| url | https://doi.org/10.58734/plc-2024-0011 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT korkomałgorzata dowordscompeteaswespeakasystematicreviewofpicturewordinterferencepwistudiesinvestigatingthenatureoflexicalselection AT bosearpita dowordscompeteaswespeakasystematicreviewofpicturewordinterferencepwistudiesinvestigatingthenatureoflexicalselection AT jonesalexander dowordscompeteaswespeakasystematicreviewofpicturewordinterferencepwistudiesinvestigatingthenatureoflexicalselection AT coulsonmark dowordscompeteaswespeakasystematicreviewofpicturewordinterferencepwistudiesinvestigatingthenatureoflexicalselection AT demornaydaviespaul dowordscompeteaswespeakasystematicreviewofpicturewordinterferencepwistudiesinvestigatingthenatureoflexicalselection |