[
Abdel Rahman, R., & Aristei, S. (2010). Now you see it ... and now again: Semantic interference reflects lexical competition in speech production with and without articulation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(5), 657–661. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.657
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Abdel Rahman, R., & Melinger, A. (2007). When bees hamper the production of honey: Lexical interference from associates in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(3), 604–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.604
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Abdel Rahman, R., & Melinger, A. (2009). Semantic context effects in language production: A swinging lexical network proposal and a review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(5), 713–734. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802597250
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Abdel Rahman, R., & Melinger, A. (2019). Semantic processing during language production: an update of the swinging lexical network. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(9), 1176–1192. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1599970
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Alario, F. X., Segui, J., & Ferrand, L. (2000). Semantic and associative priming in picture naming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 53(3), 741–764. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755907
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Aristei, S., & Abdel Rahman, R. (2013). Semantic interference in language production is due to graded similarity, not response relevance. Acta Psychologica, 144(3), 571–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.09.006
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Aristei, S., Zwitserlood, P., & Rahman, R. A. (2012). Picture-induced semantic interference reflects lexical competition during object naming. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 28. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00028
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Baars, B. J., Motley, M. T., & MacKay, D. G. (1975). Output editing for lexical status in artificially elicited slips of the tongue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(4), 382–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80017-X
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Balota, D. A., & Chumbley, J. I. (1984). Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(3), 340–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.10.3.340
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bar, M. (2004). Visual objects in context. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(8), 617–629. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1476
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bloem, I., & La Heij, W. (2003). Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in word translation: Implications for models of lexical access in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(3), 468–488.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00503-X
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bloem, I., van den Boogaard, S., & La Heij, W. (2004). Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in language production: Further evidence for the conceptual selection model of lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(2), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.001
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bölte, J., Dohmes, P., & Zwitserlood, P. (2013). Interference and facilitation in spoken word production: effects of morphologically and semantically related context stimuli on picture naming. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 255–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-012-9219-1
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bölte, J., Böhl, A., Dobel, C., & Zwitserlood, P. (2015). Investigating the flow of information during speaking: The impact of morpho-phonological, associative, and categorical picture distractors on picture naming. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1540. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01540
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Brooks, P. J., Seiger-Gardner, L., & Sailor, K. (2014). Contrasting effects of associates and coordinates in children with and without language impairment: A picture-word interference study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35(3), 515–545. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716412000495
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bürki, A., Elbuy, S., Madec, S., & Vasishth, S. (2020). What did we learn from forty years of research on semantic interference? A Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 114, 104125. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JML.2020.104125
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14(1), 177–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/026432997381664
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Caramazza, A., & Costa, A. (2000). The semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm: Does the response set matter? Cognition, 75(2), B51–B64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00082-7
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Catling, J. C., Dent, K., Johnston, R. A., & Balding, R. (2010). Age of acquisition, word frequency, and picture-word interference. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(7), 1304–1317. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903380830
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Cilibrasi, R. L., & Vitányi, P. M. B. (2007). The Google similarity distance. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 19(3), 370–383. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2007.48
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Costa, A., Alario, F.-X., & Caramazza, A. (2005). On the categorical nature of the semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(1), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196357
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Costa, A., Mahon, B., Savova, V., & Caramazza, A. (2003). Level of categorization effect: A novel effect in the picture-word interference paradigm. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(2), 205–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960143000524
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Cutting, J. C., & Ferreira, V. S. (1999). Semantic and phonological information flow in the production lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(2), 318–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.2.318
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Damian, M. F., & Bowers, J. S. (2003). Locus of semantic interference in picture-word interference tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(1), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196474
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Damian, M. F., & Spalek, K. (2014). Processing different kinds of semantic relations in picture-word interference with non-masked and masked distractors. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1183. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01183
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dell, G. S., & O’Seaghdha, P. G. (1991). Mediated and convergent lexical priming in language production: A comment on Levelt et al (1991). Psychological Review, 98(4), 604–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.4.604
]Search in Google Scholar
[
de Zubicaray, G. I., Hansen, S., & McMahon, K. L. (2013). Differential processing of thematic and categorical conceptual relations in spoken word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028717
]Search in Google Scholar
[
de Zubicaray, G. I., McLean, M., Oppermann, F., Hegarty, A., McMahon, K., & Jescheniak, J. D. (2018). The shape of things to come in speech production: Visual form interference during lexical access. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(9), 1921–1938. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1367018
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dean, M. P., Bub, D. N., & Masson, M. E. J. (2001). Interference from related items in object identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 27(3), 733–743. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.3.733
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Le Clec’H, G., Koechlin, E., Mueller, M., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Van De Moortele, P. F., & Le Bihan, D. (1998). Imaging unconscious semantic priming. Nature, 395(6702), 597–600. https://doi.org/10.1038/26967
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dhooge, E., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2010). The distractor frequency effect in picture–word interference: Evidence for response exclusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(4), 878–891. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019128
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dhooge, E., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2011). How do speakers resist distraction? Psychological Science, 22(7), 855–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611410984
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dhooge, E., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2012). Lexical selection and verbal self-monitoring: Effects of lexicality, context, and time pressure in picture-word interference. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(1), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.08.004
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Estes, Z., Golonka, S., & Jones, L. L. (2011). Thematic thinking. The apprehension and consequences of thematic relations. Psychology of Learning and Motivation - Advances in Research and Theory, 54, 249–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385527-5.00008-5
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Finkbeiner, M., & Caramazza, A. (2006). Lexical selection is not a competitive process: A reply to La Heij et al (2006). Cortex, 42(7), 1032–1035. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70210-7
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gauthier, I., James, T. W., Curby, K. M., & Tarr, M. J. (2003). The influence of conceptual knowledge on visual discrimination. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(3–6), 507–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290244000275
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gehring, W. J., Goss, B., Coles, M. G. H., Meyer, D. E., & Donchin, E. (1993). A neural system for error detection and compensation. Psychological Science, 4(6), 385–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00586.x
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Geng, J., Kirchgessner, M., & Schnur, T. (2013). The mechanism underlying lexical selection: Evidence from the picture–picture interference paradigm. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(2), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.705861
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Geng, J., Schnur, T. T., & Janssen, N. (2014). Relative speed of processing affects interference in Stroop and picture–word interference paradigms: Evidence from the distractor frequency effect. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(9), 1100–1114. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.846473
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Glaser, W. R., & Düngelhoff, F.-J. (1984). The time course of picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), 640–654. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.10.5.640
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Glaser, W. R., & Glaser, M. O. (1989). Context effects in stroop-like word and picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.118.1.13
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hansen, S. J., McMahon, K. L., Burt, J. S., & de Zubicaray, G. I. (2017). The locus of taboo context effects in picture naming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1124895
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hantsch, A., Jescheniak, J. D., & Mädebach, A. (2012). Naming and categorizing objects: Task differences modulate the polarity of semantic effects in the picture–word interference paradigm. Memory & Cognition, 40(5), 760-768. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0184-6
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hantsch, A., Jescheniak, J. D., & Schriefers, H. (2005). Semantic competition between hierarchically related words during speech planning. Memory and Cognition, 33(6), 984–1000. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193207
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hantsch, A., Jescheniak, J. D., & Schriefers, H. (2009). Distractor modality can turn semantic interference into semantic facilitation in the picture–word interference task: Implications for theories of lexical access in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(6), 1443–1453. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017020
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. E. (2011). The Cochrane Collaboration. www.cochrane‐handbook.org
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Humphreys, G. W., Lloyd-Jones, T. J., & Fias, W. (1995). Semantic interference effects on naming using a postcue procedure: Tapping the links between semantics and phonology with pictures and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 961–980. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.961
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hutson, J., & Damian, M. F. (2014). Semantic gradients in picture-word interference tasks: Is the size of interference effects affected by the degree of semantic overlap? Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 872. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00872
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hutson, J., Damian, M. F., & Spalek, K. (2013). Distractor frequency effects in picture–word interference tasks with vocal and manual responses. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(5), 615–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.605599
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Jescheniak, J. D., Matushanskaya, A., Mädebach, A., & Müller, M. M. (2014). Semantic interference from distractor pictures in single-picture naming: Evidence for competitive lexical selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(5), 1294–1300. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0606-5
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M. A., & Kosslyn, S. M. (1984). Pictures and names: Making the connection. Cognitive Psychology, 16(2), 243–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(84)90009-4
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Klein, G. S. (1964). Semantic power measured through the interference of words with color-naming. American Journal of Psychology, 77, 576–588. https://doi.org/10.2307/1420768
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kuipers, J. R., La Heij, W., & Costa, A. (2006). A further look at semantic context effects in language production: The role of response congruency. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(7–8), 892–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909600824211
]Search in Google Scholar
[
La Heij, W., Heikoop, K. W., Akerboom, S., & Bloem, I. (2003). Picture naming in picture context: Semantic interference or semantic facilitation? Psychology Science, 45(1), 49–62.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
La Heij, W., Dirkx, J., & Kramer, P. (1990). Categorical interference and associative priming in picture naming. British Journal of Psychology, 81(4), 511–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1990.tb02376.x
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2–3), 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545028
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Levelt. W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From infmtion to arriculation. MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Models of word production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(6), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01319-4
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Levelt, W. J. M. (1992). Accessing words in speech production: Stages, processes and representations. Cognition, 42(1–3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90038-J
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99001776
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lin, E. L., Murphy, G. L., & Shoben, E. J. (1997). The effects of prior processing episodes on basic-level superiority. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 50(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755686
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lupker, S. J. (1979). The semantic nature of response competition in the picture-word interference task. Memory & Cognition, 7(6), 485–495. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198265
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lupker, S. J., & Katz, A. N. (1981). Input, decision, and response factors in picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7(4), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.7.4.269
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mädebach, A., Markuske, A.-M., & Jescheniak, J. D. (2018). When does reading dirty words impede picture processing? Taboo interference with verbal and manual responses. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(6), 2301–2308. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1468-z
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mädebach, A., Wöhner, S., Kieseler, M.-L., & Jescheniak, J. D. (2017). Neighing, barking, and drumming horses—object related sounds help and hinder picture naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(9), 1629–1646. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000415
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mahon, B. Z., Costa, A., Peterson, R., Vargas, K. A., & Caramazza, A. (2007). Lexical selection is not by competition: A reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(3), 503–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.503
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Matushanskaya, A., Mädebach, A., Müller, M. M., & Jescheniak, J. D. (2016). When sufficiently processed, semantically related distractor pictures hamper picture naming: Implications for models of lexical access in speech production. Experimental Psychology, 63(6), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000340
]Search in Google Scholar
[
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88(5), 375–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.5.375
]Search in Google Scholar
[
McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37(4), 547–559. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192726
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (2003). When more is less: A counterintuitive effect of distractor frequency in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(2), 228–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.2.228
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Muehlhaus, J., Heim, S., Sachs, O., Schneider, F., Habel, U., & Sass, K. (2013). Is the motor or the garage more important to the car? The difference between semantic associations in single word and sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-012-9209-3
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mulatti, C., & Coltheart, M. (2012). Picture–word interference and the response–exclusion hypothesis. Cortex, 48(3), 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.04.025
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Müller, H. J., Geyer, T., Zehetleitner, M., & Krummenacher, J. (2009). Attentional capture by salient color singleton distractors is modulated by top-down dimensional set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.35.1.1
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Navarrete, E., & Costa, A. (2005). Phonological activation of ignored pictures: Further evidence for a cascade model of lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(3), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JML.2005.05.001
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Navarrete, E., Del Prato, P., Peressotti, F., & Mahon, B. Z. (2014). Lexical selection is not by competition: Evidence from the blocked naming paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.05.003
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Oppenheim, G. M., & Dell, G. S. (2008). Inner speech slips exhibit lexical bias, but not the phonemic similarity effect. Cognition, 106(1), 528–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.006
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Piai, V., Roelofs, A., & Schriefers, H. (2012). Distractor strength and selective attention in picture-naming performance. Memory & Cognition, 40(4), 614–627. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0171-3
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Piai, V., Roelofs, A., & van der Meij, R. (2012). Event-related potentials and oscillatory brain responses associated with semantic and Stroop-like interference effects in overt naming. Brain Research, 1450, 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2012.02.050
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Protopapas, A., Archonti, A., & Skaloumbakas, C. (2007). Reading ability is negatively related to Stroop interference. Cognitive Psychology, 54(3), 251–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.07.003
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42(1–3), 107–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)-90041-F
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Roelofs, A. (2003). Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: Modeling attentional control in the stroop task. Psychological Review, 110(1), 88–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.88
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Roelofs, A., Piai, V., & Schriefers, H. (2013). Context effects and selective attention in picture naming and word reading: Competition versus response exclusion. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(5), 655–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.615663
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rose, S. B., Aristei, S., Melinger, A., & Abdel Rahman, R. (2019). The closer they are, the more they interfere: Semantic similarity of word distractors increases competition in language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(4), 753–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000592
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rosinski, R. R. (1977). Picture-word interference is semantically based. Child Development, 48(2), 643-647. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128667
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rosinski, R. R., Golinkoff, R. M., & Kukish, K. S. (1975). Automatic semantic processing in a picture-word interference task. Child Development, 46(1), 247-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128859
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sailor, K., & Brooks, P. J. (2014). Do part–whole relations produce facilitation in the picture–word interference task? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(9), 1768–1785. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.870589
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sailor, K., Brooks, P. J., Bruening, P. R., Seiger-Gardner, L., & Guterman, M. (2009). Exploring the time course of semantic interference and associative priming in the picture–word interference task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(4), 789–801. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210802254383
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1990). Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(1), 86–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90011-N
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Severens, E., Kühn, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Brass, M. (2012). Functional mechanisms involved in the internal inhibition of taboo words. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(4), 431–435. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr030
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Smith, M. C., & Magee, L. E. (1980). Tracing the time course of picture–word processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109(4), 373–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.109.4.373
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Spalek, K., Damian, M. F., & Bölte, J. (2013). Is lexical selection in spoken word production competitive? Introduction to the special issue on lexical competition in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(5), 597–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.718088
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Spence, D. P., & Owens, K. C. (1990). Lexical co-occurrence and association strength. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19(5), 317–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01074363
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Starreveld, P. A., & La Heij, W. (1995). Semantic interference, orthographic facilitation, and their interaction in naming tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(3), 686–698. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.3.686
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Starreveld, P. A., La Heij, W., & Verdonschot, R. (2013). Time course analysis of the effects of distractor frequency and categorical relatedness in picture naming: An evaluation of the response exclusion account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(5), 633–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.608026
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Steyvers, M., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005). The large-scale structure of semantic networks: Statistical analyses and a model of semantic growth. Cognitive Science, 29(1), 41–78. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2901_3
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Vieth, Harrison E, McMahon, K. L., & de Zubicaray, G. I. (2014a). The roles of shared vs distinctive conceptual features in lexical access. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01014
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Vieth, H. E., McMahon, K. L., & de Zubicaray, G. I. (2014b). Feature overlap slows lexical selection: Evidence from the picture–word interference paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(12), 2325–2339. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.923922
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Vigliocco, G., Lauer, M., Damian, M. F., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2002). Semantic and syntactic forces in noun phrase production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 28(1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.1.46
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Lewis, W., & Garrett, M. F. (2004). Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48(4), 422–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COGPSYCH.2003.09.001
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Vitkovitch, M., & Tyrrell, L. (1999). The effects of distractor words on naming pictures at the subordinate level. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 52(4), 905–926. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755854
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wheeldon, L. R., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1995). Monitoring the time course of phonological encoding. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(3), 311–334. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1014
]Search in Google Scholar
[
White, K. K., Abrams, L., Hsi, L. R., & Watkins, E. C. (2018). Are precues effective in proactively controlling taboo interference during speech production? Cognition and Emotion, 32(8), 1625–1636. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1433637
]Search in Google Scholar
[
White, K. K., Abrams, L., Koehler, S. M., & Collins, R. J. (2017). Lions, tigers, and bears, oh sh!t: Semantics versus tabooness in speech production. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(2), 489–495. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1084-8
]Search in Google Scholar
[
White, K. K., Abrams, L., LaBat, L. R., & Rhynes, A. M. (2016). Competing influences of emotion and phonology during picture-word interference. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(2), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1101144
]Search in Google Scholar
, 