Consequences of Consonance: Sound Similarity Increases Semantic Interference
Kimberly Preusse, Jennifer Lewis, Carla Prieto, & Alexandra K. Frazer
Language Production Lab, Lehigh University
Contact: Alexandra [email protected]
Is Semantic Interference Increased by Sound Similarity?
- This effect is unconscious and robust
LEGEND:
poppy
peacock
parsnip
Conceptual
LETTER
OCEAN
puffin
pigeon
peacock
600
/n/
Phonological
/f/
/ɪ/
/p/
/d/
/k/
/ə/
*
**
580
/i/
/ʒ/
Homogeneous
Heterogeneous
620
/ʌ/
/ɒ/
Form-based Preparation may occur when attention to shared components preactivates them. This results in facilitation in picture naming (O’Seaghdha et al.,
2010).
- This effect is attention based and therefore can be fragile (O’Seaghdha & Frazer, 2013)
What happens when speakers produce words that are related in both
sound and meaning?
1.
2.
We propose the following model where:
Semantic
Interference
Cost
[SEM]
Phonological
Preparation
Benefit
[PREP]
(1) puffin pigeon
peacock (2) puffin
peacock pigeon (3)
peacock pigeon puffin
(4) pigeon puffin
peacock (5) pigeon
puffin peacock (6)
pigeon peacock puffin
(7) peacock puffin
pigeon
1150ms
“pigeon”
1250ms
150ms
250ms
*
“beep”
1150ms
250ms
…
“beep”
2
540
3
4
5
6
7
Semantic
602 567
Both
577 578
Phonological
600
580
Belke, A., Meyer, A., & Damian, M. (2005). Refractory effects in picture naming as assessed in
a semantic blocking paradigm. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58,
667-692.
Oppenheim, G., Dell, G., & Schwartz, M. (2010). The dark side of incremental learning: A
model of cumulative semantic interference during lexical access in speech production.
Cognition, 114, 227-252.
O'Seaghdha, P. G., Chen, J.-Y. & Chen, T.-M. (2010). Proximate units in word production:
Phonological encoding begins with syllables in Mandarin Chinese but with segments in
English. Cognition, 115, 282-302.
O'Seaghdha, P. G. & Frazer, A. K. (2013). A goal-setting account of form preparation in word
production. Manuscript in preparation.
Acknowledgements:
Faculty Advisor: Padraig G. O’Seaghdha.
Supported by Strohl Undergraduate Research and Dissertation Fellowship awards and
by a Faculty Collaborative Research Opportunity (CORE) award.
Homogeneous
Heterogeneous
40
560
20
540
Semantic Homogeneous
1
Phonological
facilitation is
absent!!
Error Counts
60
500
Semantic interference is present
in the Semantic condition and
significantly greater in the Both
(Semantic+Phonological)
condition
Errors here despite
lack of preparation
benefit in latencies
80
620
599 579
120
100
Interference Over Cycles in Semantic Sets
640
520
500
Both Heterogeneous
Cycles
2
3
Semantic Heterogeneous
4
5
6
0
7
Semantic
Both
Phonological
Cycles
Interference stronger and more consistent in the Both
(Semantic+Phonological) condition
More errors in the Both
(Semantic+Phonological)
condition
CONCLUSIONS
References & Acknowledgements
If form preparation occurs, the combined effect will be
underestimated by that amount.
Combined
Semantic +
Phonological
[BOTH]
Both Homogeneous
1
Phonological Feedback
Isolating the Effect of Sound Similarity on Interference
*
Higher error rates in
the Homogeneous
Contexts
640
620
600
580
560
540
520
500
520
Increased activation from shared phonological onsets will feed back to the word
level and will result in increased activation and semantic interference.
“peacock”
1250ms
150ms
“beep”
560
Attention Based Phonological Facilitation:
peacock
Interference Over Cycles in “Both” Sets
Picture Naming Latencies (ms)
ZOO
640
Word
pigeon
Results
All /p/
words…
RT(ms)
BEAK
WINGS
RT(ms)
FEATHERS
puffin
1150ms
250ms
Rotated in Version 1
Please name each picture once aloud:
150ms
*
• Semantic + Phonological (Both) items were
rotated through the Semantic and
Phonological Sets across 3 versions
Learn Phase:
“puffin”
…
lilac
lapwing
Test Phase:
crocus
/k/
Flowers
condor
/l/
lettuce
/p/
Birds
cabbage
Homogeneous Phonological Sets
lily
puffin
Flowers
/l/
laurel
2
3
Weakened link
Strengthened link
Phonological Activation
BIRD
Vegetables
lilac
During cyclic picture naming, the current word’s connections are strengthened while
competitors are weakened. Cumulatively, this leads to interference.
pigeon
Adaptive Meaning-based Semantic Interference:
1
Birds
/p/
peacock
•
Vegetables
/k/
• 21 Participants
• Presented via E-Prime 2.0
• All sets were presented in a random order
• 7 naming cycles per set, no repeats
Homogeneous Semantic Sets
Homogeneous Semantic and Phonological Sets
collards
•
carrot
Semantic interference, sometimes called retrieval-induced forgetting, occurs
when similar concepts are retrieved from memory (Belke et al., 2005).
According to an incremental learning account, interference is driven by
activation levels of competing words (Oppenheim et al., 2010). If so,
words sharing both meaning and form, because they are more activated, will
incur more semantic interference.
Testing combined semantic and phonological influences on interference is
challenging because sound similarity may also lead to facilitation.
cabbage
•
• 9 Homogeneous Sets
• 9 Heterogeneous Sets (by fill color)
• All words were disyllabic nouns
Heterogeneous Controls
Semantic Interference
Blocked Cyclic Naming Procedure
Materials & Design
•
•
•
Facilitation was largely absent in the Phonological condition: This suggests that attention was NOT
directed to shared sounds.
We found interference, as expected, in the semantically related sets.
Despite the lack of phonological facilitation, interference was significantly greater in the mixed
Semantic+Phonological (Both) condition:
Additional Interference = BOTH (35) – SEM (20) + PREP (1) = 16 ms
• Error patterns reflect immediate activation but interference is due to a learning mechanism.
• Consonance leads to increased activation of competing words with the consequence that
sound similarity increases semantic interference.