Cover not available
Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 13:2 (2018) ► pp.159–185

An investigation of the role of working memory capacity and naming speed in phonological advance planning in language production

| Radboud University
| Radboud University

Producing multi-word utterances is a complex, yet relatively effortless process. Research with the picture-word interference paradigm has shown that speakers can plan all elements of such utterances up to the phonological level before initiating speech, yet magnitude and direction of this phonological priming effect (i.e. facilitative vs. inhibitory) differ between but also within studies. We investigated possible sources for variability in the phonological advance planning scope. In two experiments, participants produced bare nouns (“monkey”) and complex noun phrases (“the small red monkey”) while ignoring distractor words phonologically (un)related to the noun. For low- and high-working memory capacity speakers as well as fast and slow speakers, we found phonological facilitation effects for the bare noun, but no distractor effects for the complex noun phrases. However, looking at individual distractor effects for utterance-final elements revealed a large variability between speakers. We conclude that phonological advance planning cannot be summarised as an overall effect, but should take into account inter- and intraindividual variability.

Keywords: language production, individual differences, working memory, phonological advance planning
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Experiment 1
    • Methods
      • Participants
      • Materials
      • Design
      • Procedure
      • Analyses
    • Results
    • Discussion
  • Experiment 2
    • Methods
      • Participants
      • Materials and design
      • Procedure and analyses
    • Results
      • Distractor effects without a response deadline
      • Distractor effects with a response deadline
    • Discussion
  • General discussion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 January 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.17020.kla
References

References

Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M.
(2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A.
(2003) Working memory and language: an overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36(3), 189–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J.
(2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
(2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W.
(2005) Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 769–786. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., & Caramazza, A.
(2002) The production of noun phrases in English and Spanish: Implications for the scope of phonological encoding in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(1), 178–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damian, M. F., & Dumay, N.
(2007) Time pressure and phonological advance planning in spoken production. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(2), 195–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damian, M. F., & Martin, R. C.
(1999) Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 251, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A.
(1980) Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daneman, M., & Green, I.
(1986) Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(1), 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M.
(1996) Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(4), 422–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A.
(1999) Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(3), 309–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A.
(2005) Comparison of four scoring methods for the reading span test. Behavior Research Methods, 37(4), 581–590. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Barkhuysen, P. N.
(2006) Language production and working memory: The case of subject-verb agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(1–3), 181–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. F.
(2008) Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jescheniak, J. D., Schriefers, H., & Hantsch, A.
(2003) Utterance format affects phonological priming in the picture-word task: implications for models of phonological encoding in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(2), 441–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jongman, S. R., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S.
(2015) Sustained attention in language production: An individual differences investigation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(4), 710–730. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W.
(2004) The generality of working memory capacity: a latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 189–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klaus, J., Mädebach, A., Oppermann, F., & Jescheniak, J. D.
(2017) Planning sentences while doing other things at the same time: effects of concurrent verbal and visuospatial working memory load. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(4), 811–831. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klaus, J., & Schriefers, H.
(2016) Measuring verbal working memory capacity: A reading span task for laboratory and web-based use. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, A. S.
(1996) Lexical access in phrase and sentence production: Results from picture–word interference experiments. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(4), 477–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michel Lange, V., & Laganaro, M.
(2014) Inter-subject variability modulates phonological advance planning in the production of adjective-noun phrases. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N.
(2015) BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs. R package version 0.9.12-2. [URL]
Oppermann, F., Jescheniak, J. D., & Schriefers, H.
(2010) Phonological advance planning in sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(4), 526–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schnur, T. T.
(2011) Phonological planning during sentence production: Beyond the verb. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schnur, T. T., Costa, A., & Caramazza, A.
(2006) Planning at the phonological level during sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35(2), 189–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schriefers, H.
(1992) Lexical access in the production of noun phrases. Cognition, 45(1), 33–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schriefers, H., de Ruiter, J. P., & Steigerwald, M.
(1999) Parallelism in the production of noun phrases: Experiments and reaction time models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 25(3), 702–720. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schriefers, H., & Teruel, E.
(1999) Phonological facilitation in the production of two-word utterances. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 11(1), 17–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shao, Z., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S.
(2012) Sources of individual differences in the speed of naming objects and actions: The contribution of executive control. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(10), 1927–1944. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sikora, K., Roelofs, A., Hermans, D., & Knoors, H.
(2016) Executive control in spoken noun-phrase production: Contributions of updating, inhibiting, and shifting. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(9), 1719–1740. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, M., & Wheeldon, L.
(2004) Horizontal information flow in spoken sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(3), 675–686. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swets, B., Jacovina, M. E., & Gerrig, R. J.
(2014) Individual differences in the scope of speech planning: evidence from eye-movements. Language and Cognition, 6(1), 12–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W.
(1989) Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28(2), 127–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, V., Jescheniak, J. D., & Schriefers, H.
(2010) On the flexibility of grammatical advance planning during sentence production: Effects of cognitive load on multiple lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(2), 423–440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wheeldon, L., Ohlson, N., Ashby, A., & Gator, S.
(2013) Lexical availability and grammatical encoding scope during spoken sentence production. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(8), 1653–1673. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhao, L.-M., & Yang, Y.-F.
(2016) Lexical planning in sentence production is highly incremental: Evidence from ERPs. PLoS One, 11(1), e0146359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Swets, Benjamin, Susanne Fuchs, Jelena Krivokapić & Caterina Petrone
2021. A Cross-Linguistic Study of Individual Differences in Speech Planning. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.