Publications

Displaying 1 - 13 of 13
  • Piai, V., Roelofs, A., Jensen, O., Schoffelen, J.-M., & Bonnefond, M. (2014). Distinct patterns of brain activity characterise lexical activation and competition in spoken word production. PLoS One, 9(2): e88674. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088674.

    Abstract

    According to a prominent theory of language production, concepts activate multiple associated words in memory, which enter into competition for selection. However, only a few electrophysiological studies have identified brain responses reflecting competition. Here, we report a magnetoencephalography study in which the activation of competing words was manipulated by presenting pictures (e.g., dog) with distractor words. The distractor and picture name were semantically related (cat), unrelated (pin), or identical (dog). Related distractors are stronger competitors to the picture name because they receive additional activation from the picture relative to other distractors. Picture naming times were longer with related than unrelated and identical distractors. Phase-locked and non-phase-locked activity were distinct but temporally related. Phase-locked activity in left temporal cortex, peaking at 400 ms, was larger on unrelated than related and identical trials, suggesting differential activation of alternative words by the picture-word stimuli. Non-phase-locked activity between roughly 350–650 ms (4–10 Hz) in left superior frontal gyrus was larger on related than unrelated and identical trials, suggesting differential resolution of the competition among the alternatives, as reflected in the naming times. These findings characterise distinct patterns of activity associated with lexical activation and competition, supporting the theory that words are selected by competition.
  • Piai, V., Roelofs, A., & Schriefers, H. (2014). Locus of semantic interference in picture naming: Evidence from dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1), 147-165. doi:10.1037/a0033745.

    Abstract

    Disagreement exists regarding the functional locus of semantic interference of distractor words in picture naming. This effect is a cornerstone of modern psycholinguistic models of word production, which assume that it arises in lexical response-selection. However, recent evidence from studies of dual-task performance suggests a locus in perceptual or conceptual processing, prior to lexical response-selection. In these studies, participants manually responded to a tone and named a picture while ignoring a written distractor word. The stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between tone and picture–word stimulus was manipulated. Semantic interference in naming latencies was present at long tone pre-exposure SOAs, but reduced or absent at short SOAs. Under the prevailing structural or strategic response-selection bottleneck and central capacity sharing models of dual-task performance, the underadditivity of the effects of SOA and stimulus type suggests that semantic interference emerges before lexical response-selection. However, in more recent studies, additive effects of SOA and stimulus type were obtained. Here, we examined the discrepancy in results between these studies in 6 experiments in which we systematically manipulated various dimensions on which these earlier studies differed, including tasks, materials, stimulus types, and SOAs. In all our experiments, additive effects of SOA and stimulus type on naming latencies were obtained. These results strongly suggest that the semantic interference effect arises after perceptual and conceptual processing, during lexical response-selection or later. We discuss several theoretical alternatives with respect to their potential to account for the discrepancy between the present results and other studies showing underadditivity.
  • Piai, V., Roelofs, A., & Maris, E. (2014). Oscillatory brain responses in spoken word production reflect lexical frequency and sentential constraint. Neuropsychologia, 53, 146-156. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.11.014.

    Abstract

    Two fundamental factors affecting the speed of spoken word production are lexical frequency and sentential constraint, but little is known about their timing and electrophysiological basis. In the present study, we investigated event-related potentials (ERPs) and oscillatory brain responses induced by these factors, using a task in which participants named pictures after reading sentences. Sentence contexts were either constraining or nonconstraining towards the final word, which was presented as a picture. Picture names varied in their frequency of occurrence in the language. Naming latencies and electrophysiological responses were examined as a function of context and lexical frequency. Lexical frequency is an index of our cumulative learning experience with words, so lexical-frequency effects most likely reflect access to memory representations for words. Pictures were named faster with constraining than nonconstraining contexts. Associated with this effect, starting around 400 ms pre-picture presentation, oscillatory power between 8 and 30 Hz was lower for constraining relative to nonconstraining contexts. Furthermore, pictures were named faster with high-frequency than low-frequency names, but only for nonconstraining contexts, suggesting differential ease of memory access as a function of sentential context. Associated with the lexical-frequency effect, starting around 500 ms pre-picture presentation, oscillatory power between 4 and 10 Hz was higher for high-frequency than for low-frequency names, but only for constraining contexts. Our results characterise electrophysiological responses associated with lexical frequency and sentential constraint in spoken word production, and point to new avenues for studying these fundamental factors in language production.
  • Shao, Z., Roelofs, A., Acheson, D. J., & Meyer, A. S. (2014). Electrophysiological evidence that inhibition supports lexical selection in picture naming. Brain Research, 1586, 130-142. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2014.07.009.

    Abstract

    We investigated the neural basis of inhibitory control during lexical selection. Participants overtly named pictures while response times (RTs) and event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded. The difficulty of lexical selection was manipulated by using object and action pictures with high name agreement (few response candidates) versus low name agreement (many response candidates). To assess the involvement of inhibition, we conducted delta plot analyses of naming RTs and examined the N2 component of the ERP. We found longer mean naming RTs and a larger N2 amplitude in the low relative to the high name agreement condition. For action naming we found a negative correlation between the slopes of the slowest delta segment and the difference in N2 amplitude between the low and high name agreement conditions. The converging behavioral and electrophysiological evidence suggests that selective inhibition is engaged to reduce competition during lexical selection in picture naming.
  • Shao, Z., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (2014). Predicting naming latencies for action pictures: Dutch norms. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 274-283. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0358-6.

    Abstract

    The present study provides Dutch norms for age of acquisition, familiarity, imageability, image agreement, visual complexity, word frequency, and word length (in syllables) for 124 line drawings of actions. Ratings were obtained from 117 Dutch participants. Word frequency was determined on the basis of the SUBTLEX-NL corpus (Keuleers, Brysbaert, & New, Behavior Research Methods, 42, 643–650, 2010). For 104 of the pictures, naming latencies and name agreement were determined in a separate naming experiment with 74 native speakers of Dutch. The Dutch norms closely corresponded to the norms for British English. Multiple regression analysis showed that age of acquisition, imageability, image agreement, visual complexity, and name agreement were significant predictors of naming latencies, whereas word frequency and word length were not. Combined with the results of a principal-component analysis, these findings suggest that variables influencing the processes of conceptual preparation and lexical selection affect latencies more strongly than do variables influencing word-form encoding.

    Additional information

    Shao_Behav_Res_2013_Suppl_Mat.doc
  • Janssen, D. P., Roelofs, A., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2004). Stem complexity and inflectional encoding in language production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33(5), 365-381. doi:10.1023/B:JOPR.0000039546.60121.a8.

    Abstract

    Three experiments are reported that examined whether stem complexity plays a role in inflecting polymorphemic words in language production. Experiment 1 showed that preparation effects for words with polymorphemic stems are larger when they are produced among words with constant inflectional structures compared to words with variable inflectional structures and simple stems. This replicates earlier findings for words with monomorphemic stems (Janssen et al., 2002). Experiments 2 and 3 showed that when inflectional structure is held constant, the preparation effects are equally large with simple and compound stems, and with compound and complex adjectival stems. These results indicate that inflectional encoding is blind to the complexity of the stem, which suggests that specific inflectional rather than generic morphological frames guide the generation of inflected forms in speaking words.
  • Levelt, W. J. M., Meyer, A. S., & Roelofs, A. (2004). Relations of lexical access to neural implementation and syntactic encoding [author's response]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 299-301. doi:10.1017/S0140525X04270078.

    Abstract

    How can one conceive of the neuronal implementation of the processing model we proposed in our target article? In his commentary (Pulvermüller 1999, reprinted here in this issue), Pulvermüller makes various proposals concerning the underlying neural mechanisms and their potential localizations in the brain. These proposals demonstrate the compatibility of our processing model and current neuroscience. We add further evidence on details of localization based on a recent meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies of word production (Indefrey & Levelt 2000). We also express some minor disagreements with respect to Pulvermüller’s interpretation of the “lemma” notion, and concerning his neural modeling of phonological code retrieval. Branigan & Pickering discuss important aspects of syntactic encoding, which was not the topic of the target article. We discuss their well-taken proposal that multiple syntactic frames for a single verb lemma are represented as independent nodes, which can be shared with other verbs, such as accounting for syntactic priming in speech production. We also discuss how, in principle, the alternative multiple-frame-multiplelemma account can be tested empirically. The available evidence does not seem to support that account.
  • Meeuwissen, M., Roelofs, A., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2004). Naming analog clocks conceptually facilitates naming digital clocks. Brain and Language, 90(1-3), 434-440. doi:10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00454-1.

    Abstract

    This study investigates how speakers of Dutch compute and produce relative time expressions. Naming digital clocks (e.g., 2:45, say ‘‘quarter to three’’) requires conceptual operations on the minute and hour information for the correct relative time expression. The interplay of these conceptual operations was investigated using a repetition priming paradigm. Participants named analog clocks (the primes) directly before naming digital clocks (the targets). The targets referred to the hour (e.g., 2:00), half past the hour (e.g., 2:30), or the coming hour (e.g., 2:45). The primes differed from the target in one or two hour and in five or ten minutes. Digital clock naming latencies were shorter with a five- than with a ten-min difference between prime and target, but the difference in hour had no effect. Moreover, the distance in minutes had only an effect for half past the hour and the coming hour, but not for the hour. These findings suggest that conceptual facilitation occurs when conceptual transformations are shared between prime and target in telling time.
  • Roelofs, A. (2004). Seriality of phonological encoding in naming objects and reading their names. Memory & Cognition, 32(2), 212-222.

    Abstract

    There is a remarkable lack of research bringing together the literatures on oral reading and speaking.
    As concerns phonological encoding, both models of reading and speaking assume a process of segmental
    spellout for words, which is followed by serial prosodification in models of speaking (e.g., Levelt,
    Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999). Thus, a natural place to merge models of reading and speaking would be
    at the level of segmental spellout. This view predicts similar seriality effects in reading and object naming.
    Experiment 1 showed that the seriality of encoding inside a syllable revealed in previous studies
    of speaking is observed for both naming objects and reading their names. Experiment 2 showed that
    both object naming and reading exhibit the seriality of the encoding of successive syllables previously
    observed for speaking. Experiment 3 showed that the seriality is also observed when object naming and
    reading trials are mixed rather than tested separately, as in the first two experiments. These results suggest
    that a serial phonological encoding mechanism is shared between naming objects and reading
    their names.
  • Roelofs, A. (2004). The seduced speaker: Modeling of cognitive control. In A. Belz, R. Evans, & P. Piwek (Eds.), Natural language generation. (pp. 1-10). Berlin: Springer.

    Abstract

    Although humans are the ultimate “natural language generators”, the area of psycholinguistic modeling has been somewhat underrepresented in recent approaches to Natural Language Generation in computer science. To draw attention to the area and illustrate its potential relevance to Natural Language Generation, I provide an overview of recent work on psycholinguistic modeling of language production together with some key empirical findings, state-of-the-art experimental techniques, and their historical roots. The techniques include analyses of speech-error corpora, chronometric analyses, eyetracking, and neuroimaging.
    The overview is built around the issue of cognitive control in natural language generation, concentrating on the production of single words, which is an essential ingredient of the generation of larger utterances. Most of the work exploited the fact that human speakers are good but not perfect at resisting temptation, which has provided some critical clues about the nature of the underlying system.
  • Roelofs, A. (2004). Error biases in spoken word planning and monitoring by aphasic and nonaphasic speakers: Comment on Rapp and Goldrick,2000. Psychological Review, 111(2), 561-572. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.561.

    Abstract

    B. Rapp and M. Goldrick (2000) claimed that the lexical and mixed error biases in picture naming by
    aphasic and nonaphasic speakers argue against models that assume a feedforward-only relationship
    between lexical items and their sounds in spoken word production. The author contests this claim by
    showing that a feedforward-only model like WEAVER ++ (W. J. M. Levelt, A. Roelofs, & A. S. Meyer,
    1999b) exhibits the error biases in word planning and self-monitoring. Furthermore, it is argued that
    extant feedback accounts of the error biases and relevant chronometric effects are incompatible.
    WEAVER ++ simulations with self-monitoring revealed that this model accounts for the chronometric
    data, the error biases, and the influence of the impairment locus in aphasic speakers.
  • Roelofs, A. (2004). Comprehension-based versus production-internal feedback in planning spoken words: A rejoinder to Rapp and Goldrick, 2004. Psychological Review, 111(2), 579-580. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.579.

    Abstract

    WEAVER++ has no backward links in its form-production network and yet is able to explain the lexical
    and mixed error biases and the mixed distractor latency effect. This refutes the claim of B. Rapp and M.
    Goldrick (2000) that these findings specifically support production-internal feedback. Whether their restricted interaction account model can also provide a unified account of the error biases and latency effect remains to be shown.
  • Roelofs, A., & Schiller, N. (2004). Produzieren von Ein- und Mehrwortäusserungen. In G. Plehn (Ed.), Jahrbuch der Max-Planck Gesellschaft (pp. 655-658). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Share this page