Hughes Julie W, Schnur Tatiana T
Baylor College of Medicine, Department of Neurosurgery - BCM 240, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030, United States.
Baylor College of Medicine, Department of Neurosurgery - BCM 240, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030, United States.
Cognition. 2017 Aug;165:61-72. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.04.012. Epub 2017 May 11.
Our success with naming depends on what we have named previously, a phenomenon thought to reflect learning processes. Repeatedly producing the same name facilitates language production (i.e., repetition priming), whereas producing semantically related names hinders subsequent performance (i.e., semantic interference). Semantic interference is found whether naming categorically related items once (continuous naming) or multiple times (blocked cyclic naming). A computational model suggests that the same learning mechanism responsible for facilitation in repetition creates semantic interference in categorical naming (Oppenheim, Dell, & Schwartz, 2010). Accordingly, we tested the predictions that variability in semantic interference is correlated across categorical naming tasks and is caused by learning, as measured by two repetition priming tasks (picture-picture repetition priming, Exp. 1; definition-picture repetition priming, Exp. 2, e.g., Wheeldon & Monsell, 1992). In Experiment 1 (77 subjects) semantic interference and repetition priming effects were robust, but the results revealed no relationship between semantic interference effects across contexts. Critically, learning (picture-picture repetition priming) did not predict semantic interference effects in either task. We replicated these results in Experiment 2 (81 subjects), finding no relationship between semantic interference effects across tasks or between semantic interference effects and learning (definition-picture repetition priming). We conclude that the changes underlying facilitatory and interfering effects inherent to lexical access are the result of distinct learning processes where multiple mechanisms contribute to semantic interference in naming.
我们在命名方面的成功取决于我们之前所命名的内容，这一现象被认为反映了学习过程。反复说出相同的名称有助于语言生成（即重复启动），而说出语义相关的名称则会妨碍后续表现（即语义干扰）。无论是对类别相关项目进行一次命名（连续命名）还是多次命名（分组循环命名），都会发现语义干扰。一个计算模型表明，在重复中产生促进作用的相同学习机制在类别命名中会产生语义干扰（奥本海姆、戴尔和施瓦茨，2010年）。因此，我们检验了以下预测：语义干扰的变异性在不同的类别命名任务中具有相关性，并且是由学习引起的，这通过两个重复启动任务来衡量（图片-图片重复启动，实验1；定义-图片重复启动，实验2，例如惠尔登和蒙塞尔，1992年）。在实验1（77名受试者）中，语义干扰和重复启动效应很显著，但结果显示不同情境下的语义干扰效应之间没有关系。至关重要的是，学习（图片-图片重复启动）在任何一个任务中都无法预测语义干扰效应。我们在实验2（81名受试者）中重复了这些结果，发现不同任务之间的语义干扰效应以及语义干扰效应与学习（定义-图片重复启动）之间均没有关系。我们得出结论，词汇通达中固有的促进和干扰效应背后的变化是不同学习过程的结果，其中多种机制导致了命名中的语义干扰。
