La Heij W, Kuipers JR & Starreveld PA (2006) In defense of the lexical-competition account of picture-word interference: A comment on Finkbeiner and Caramazza (2006). Commentary on: FINKBEINER M AND CARAMAZZA A. Now you see it, now you don’t: On turning semantic interference into semantic facilitation in a Stroop-like task. Cortex, 42: 790-796, 2006. Cortex, 42 (7), pp. 1028-1031. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452%2808%2970209-0
On the basis of two empirical observations, Finkbeiner and Caramazza (2006) take issue with the generally accepted interpretation of semantic interference in the picture-word interference task in terms of lexical competition. As an alternative, they propose a response-selection account, in which semantic interference is attributed to the time needed to remove the inappropriate (word-reading) response from an output buffer. In this comment we argue that the empirical work discussed provides an interesting challenge for current models of language production, but that the authors' alternative account is at variance with at least three robust empirical findings in the language production literature.
language production; lexical access; stroop; picture-word interference
Cortex: Volume 42, Issue 7
|Publication date online||31/03/2008|
|Item discussed||FINKBEINER M AND CARAMAZZA A. Now you see it, now you don’t: On turning semantic interference into semantic facilitation in a Stroop-like task. Cortex, 42: 790-796, 2006|