The Effect of the Target’s Subjective Complexity on the Picture-Word Interference

Picture-word interference (PWI) paradigm is widely used in cognitive science for studying selective attention and speech production. This experimental paradigm is a modification of the classical Stroop task. In PWI task participants perform speeded naming of pictures (targets) while ignoring superimposed word distractors. Pictures are usually named more quickly when the distractor is a word than a control stimulus — the interference effect is observed. The effect size depends on many factors including the target’s subjective complexity. Leading theories of Stroop interference give mutually exclusive predictions concerning the influence of this factor on the magnitude of interference. According to the theories of competition, which consider the interference effect as a consequence of automatic processes, the complication of target images should lead to an increase in interference. The opposite prediction follows from the framework of control theories, which consider Stroop interference as a consequence of voluntary attention processes. The aim of this study is to identify the orientation of the target’s subjective complexity effect on picture-word interference. The subjective complexity of the target images was varied in two ways: (1) by using unfamiliar targets and (2) by targets fragmentation. In both experiments, the identical results were obtained. Increase in the target’s subjective complexity, no matter how it was varied, led to the decrease of picture-word interference. The obtained results provide evidence for the control theories, which include the conceptions of D. Kahneman and V. M. Allakhverdov

MacLeod C. M. Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 1991, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 163–203.

Rosinski R. R., Golinkoff R. M., Kukish K. S. Automatic semantic processing in a picture-word interference task. Child Development, 1975, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 247–253.

Shelepin K. Iu., Pronin S. V., Shelepin Iu. E. Raspoznavanie fragmentirovannykh izobrazhenii i vozniknovenie «insaita» [Recognizing fragmented images and the appearance of “insight”]. Opticheskii zhurnal [Journal of optics], 2015, vol. 82, no. 10, pp. 70–78. (In Russian)

Grill-Spector K., Henson R., Martin A. Repetition and the brain: neural models of stimulus-specific effects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2006, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 14–23.

Sopov M. S. Vliianie novizny stimulov na posleduiushchuiu pererabotku zritel’noi informatsii: Izuchenie metodom vyzvannykh potentsialov [The effect of stimulus novelty on subsequent information processing: An ERP study]. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Series 12, 2015, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 5–13. (In Russian)

Shiffrin R. M., Schneider W. Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 1977, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 127–190.

Logan G. D. Repetition Priming and Automaticity: Common Underlying Mechanisms? Cognitive Psychology, 1990, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1–35.

Roelofs A. A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 1992, vol. 42, no. 1–3, pp. 107–142.

Levelt W. J. M., Roelofs A., Meyer A. S. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1999, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1–38.

Roelofs A. A unified computational account of cumulative semantic, semantic blocking, and semantic distractor effects in picture naming. Cognition, 2018, vol. 172, pp. 59–72.

Sopov M. S. Fenomen Strup-interferentsii v kontekste teorii leksicheskogo dostupa [Stroop interference phenomenon in the context of lexical access theories]. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Psychology and Education, 2018, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 47–69. (In Russian)

La Heij W., van den Hof E. Picture-word interference increases with target-set size. Psychological Research, 1995, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 119–133.

Geng J., Schnur T. T., Janssen N. Relative speed of processing affects interference in Stroop and picture-word interference paradigms: evidence from the distractor frequency effect. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 2014, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 1100–1114.

Allakhverdov V. M. Opyt teoreticheskoi psikhologii (v zhanre nauchnoi revoliutsii) [Experience of theoretical psychology]. St. Petersburg, Pechatnyi dvor Publ., 1993. (In Russian)

Allakhverdov V. M., Allakhverdov M. V. Fenomen Strupa: interferentsiia kak logicheskii paradoks [Stroop phenomenon: interference as a logical paradox]. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Psychology and Education, 2014, no. 4, pp. 90–102. (In Russian)

Kahneman D., Chajczyk D. Tests of the automaticity of reading: Dilution of Stroop effects by color- irrelevant stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1983, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 497–509.

Collina S., Tabossi P., De Simone F. Word production and the picture-word interference paradigm: The role of learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2013, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 461–473.

Gauvin H. S., Jonen M. K., Choi J., McMahon K., de Zubicaray G. I. No lexical competition without priming: Evidence from the picture-word interference paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2018. doi: 10.1177/1747021817747266.

Rosinski R. R. Picture-word interference is semantically based. Child Development, 1977, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 643–647.

Piai V., Riès S. K., Swick D. Lesions to lateral prefrontal cortex impair lexical interference control in word production. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2016, vol. 9, p. 721. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00721.

Piai V., Knight R. T. Lexical selection with competing distractors: Evidence from left temporal lobe lesions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2018, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 710–717.

Besner D., Stolz J. A., Boutilier C. The Stroop effect and the myth of automaticity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1997, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 221–225.

Chen Z. Attentional focus, processing load, and Stroop interference. Perception & Psychophysics, 2003, vol. 65, no. 6, pp. 888–900.

Mulatti C., Ceccherini L., Coltheart M. What can we learn about visual attention to multiple words from the word-word interference task? Memory & Cognition, 2015, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 121–132.

Mayall K., Humphreys G. W. Case mixing and the task-sensitive disruption of lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1996, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 278–294.

Liashevskaia O. N., Sharov S. A. Chastotnyi slovar’ sovremennogo russkogo iazyka (na materialakh Natsional’nogo korpusa russkogo iazyka) [Frequency dictionary of the modern Russian language (on the materials of the National Corpus of the Russian language) ]. Moscow, Azbukovnik Publ., 2009. (In Russian)

Brodeur M. B., Dionne-Dostie E., Montreuil T., Lepage M. The Bank of Standardized Stimuli (BOSS), a new set of 480 normative photos of objects to be used as visual stimuli in cognitive research. PLoS ONE, 2010, vol. 5, no. 5, e10773. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010773.

Sopov M. S., Starodubtsev A. S., Miroshnik K. G., Shindrikov R. Iu. Baza ctandartizirovannykh izobrazhenii BOSS: adaptatsiia dlia ispol’zovaniia na russkoiazychnoi vyborke [The Bank of Standardized Stimuli (BOSS): Adaptation for use in Russian-language studies]. Psychology. Journal of Higher School of Economics. In press. (In Russian)

Peirce J. W. PsychoPy — Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 2007, vol. 162, no. 1–2, pp. 8–13.

Boersma P., Weenink D. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.3.42) . 2013. Retrieved from www.praat.org.

De Simone F., Collina S. The Picture-Word Interference Paradigm: Grammatical Class Effects in Lexical Production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2016, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 1003–1019.

Glaser W. R., Glaser M. O. Context effects on Stroop-like word and picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1989, vol. 118, no. 1, pp. 13–42.

Roelofs A. Set size and repetition matter: Comment on Caramazza and Costa (2000). Cognition, 2001, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 283–290.