Why is a flamingo named as pelican and asparagus as celery? Understanding the relationship between targets and errors in a speeded picture naming task.

Speakers sometimes make word production errors, such as mistakenly saying pelican instead of flamingo. This study explored which properties of an error influence the likelihood of its selection over the target word. Analysing real-word errors in speeded picture naming, we investigated whether, relative to the target, naming errors were more typical representatives of the semantic category, were associated with more semantic features, and/or were semantically more closely related to the target than its near semantic neighbours were on average. Results indicated that naming errors tended to be more typical category representatives and possess more semantic features than the targets. Moreover, while not being the closest semantic neighbours, errors were largely near semantic neighbours of the targets. These findings suggest that typicality, number of semantic features, and semantic similarity govern activation levels in the production system, and we discuss possible mechanisms underlying these effects in the context of word production theories.

Are they really stronger? Comparing effects of semantic variables in speeded deadline and standard picture naming.

Investigations of effects of semantic variables on picture naming have often been inconclusive, with some studies reporting significant and others non-significant effects. One potential explanation may relate to the specific naming tasks used: While most previous studies have used standard picture naming, others have used speeded naming that requires participants to prioritise naming speed over accuracy. Speeded naming has been suggested to cause enhanced effects of item-inherent word characteristics due to disruptions of cognitive control and resulting modulations of responsiveness to input. Consequently, this study investigated whether effects are stronger in speeded compared to standard picture naming, focusing on six feature-based semantic variables: number of semantic features, intercorrelational density, number of near semantic neighbours, semantic similarity, typicality, and distinctiveness. The results showed few differences in the variables' effects between the two naming tasks: In the naming latency analysis, the inhibitory effect of distinctiveness was stronger in the speeded naming task, while in the accuracy analysis the effect of number of semantic features was stronger in the standard naming task. These findings cannot, therefore, be exclusively accounted for by increased responsiveness to input in speeded naming and we discuss possible underlying mechanisms. We conclude that, while some differences in effects of semantic variables between previous studies may have been caused by the specific naming task used, differences between studies more likely depend on statistical power and control of other influential variables in the experiment.

No negative impact of word retraining on vocabulary use or clarity of communication in semantic dementia.

Word retraining techniques can improve picture naming of treated items in people with semantic dementia (SD). The utility of this, however, has been questioned given the propensity for under- and overgeneralization errors in naming in SD. Few studies have investigated the occurrence of such errors. This study examined whether, following tailored word retraining: (1) misuse of words increases, (2) the type of naming errors changes, and/or (3) clarity of communication is reduced. Performance on trained and untrained word naming from nine participants with SD who completed a word retraining programme were analysed. Responses from baseline and post-intervention assessments were coded for misuse (i.e., trained word produced for another target item), error type, and communication clarity. All participants showed significant improvement for trained vocabulary. There was no significant increase in misuse of words, with such errors occurring rarely. At a group level, there was an increased tendency toward omission errors for untrained items, and a reduction in semantically related responses. However, this did not impact on clarity scores with no consistent change across participants. In sum, we found no negative impacts following tailored word retraining, providing further evidence of the benefit of these programmes for individuals with SD.

Investigating the influence of semantic factors on word retrieval: Reservations, results and recommendations.

There is consensus that word retrieval starts with activation of semantic representations. However, in adults without language impairment, relatively little attention has been paid to the effects of the semantic attributes of to-be-retrieved words. This paper, therefore, addresses the question of which item-inherent semantic factors influence word retrieval. Specifically, it reviews the literature on a selection of these factors: imageability, concreteness, number of semantic features, typicality, intercorrelational density, featural distinctiveness, concept distinctiveness, animacy, semantic neighbourhood density, semantic similarity, operativity, valence, and arousal. It highlights several methodological challenges in this field, and has a focus on the insights from studies with people with aphasia where the effects of these variables are more prevalent. The paper concludes that further research simultaneously examining the effects of different semantic factors that are likely to affect lexical co-activation, and the interaction of these variables, would be fruitful, as would suitably scaled computational modelling of these effects in unimpaired language processing and in language impairment. Such research would enable the refinement of theories of semantic processing and word production, and potentially have implications for diagnosis and treatment of semantic and lexical impairments.

Semantic variables both help and hinder word production: Behavioral evidence from picture naming.

This research investigated how word production is influenced by six feature-based semantic variables (number of semantic features, intercorrelational density, number of near semantic neighbors, semantic similarity, typicality, and distinctiveness). We simultaneously investigated effects of the six semantic variables on spoken picture naming in a large group of participants (n = 87), while controlling for other psycholinguistic variables. Across analyses, number of semantic features was the most consistent predictor with a facilitatory effect on naming latency and accuracy. In addition, inhibitory effects were found on naming accuracy for intercorrelational density and on naming latency for distinctiveness. The facilitatory effect of number of semantic features is suggested to stem from stronger semantic activation with an increasing number of semantic features, which results in facilitated selection of the word's lexical representation. In contrast, the inhibitory effect of intercorrelational density is most easily accounted for by increased competition at the lexical level. The mechanism underlying the inhibitory effect of distinctiveness is unclear. These findings indicate that future research on factors affecting word retrieval should also control for effects of number of semantic features, intercorrelational density, and distinctiveness. They also suggest that effects of the other semantic variables (e.g., semantic neighbors) reported in the literature were potentially overestimated due to insufficient control of other semantic and/or psycholinguistic variables. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Effects of semantic variables on word production in aphasia.

Words differ in the complexity of their semantic representations and their relationships to other words and these differences can be operationalised as a variety of semantic variables. The research presented here investigates how word production in aphasia is influenced by six feature-based semantic variables (number of near semantic neighbours, semantic similarity, number of semantic features, typicality, intercorrelational density, and distinctiveness). Previous research has reported inconsistent findings for some of the semantic variables, while others have not been previously studied in aphasia. Spoken picture naming data from a large group of individuals with aphasia with mixed spoken word production impairments (n = 175) and a sub-group who produced few phonological errors (n = 60) was analysed. We examined effects of the semantic variables on overall naming accuracy and on the occurrence of different error types (semantic errors overall, coordinate errors, omissions), while controlling for other psycholinguistic variables using generalised linear mixed effects models and Bayesian correlations. Across analyses, number of semantic features was the most important predictor with a facilitatory main effect on naming accuracy in the sub-group analysis. Number of semantic features, along with typicality and semantic similarity, also predicted error types and in some analyses these effects depended on the integrity of semantic processing. Effects of the semantic variables and their theoretical explanations and implications are discussed in light of previous research and models of word production.