Cited by 124Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismCategorization, perception, and languageReading and Literacy Development

What did we learn from forty years of research on semantic interference? A Bayesian meta-analysis

Open access
Bürki, Audrey, Elbuy, Shereen, Madec, Sylvain, Vasishth, Shravan·2020·Journal of Memory and Language

Abstract

When participants in an experiment have to name pictures while ignoring distractor words superimposed on the picture or presented auditorily (i.e., picture-word interference paradigm), they take more time when the word to be named (or target) and distractor words are from the same semantic category (e.g., cat-dog). This experimental effect is known as the semantic interference effect, and is probably one of the most studied in the language production literature. The functional origin of the effect and the exact conditions in which it occurs are however still debated. Since Lupker (1979) reported the effect in the first response time experiment about 40 years ago, more than 300 similar experiments have been conducted. The semantic interference effect was replicated in many experiments, but several studies also reported the absence of an effect in a subset of experimental conditions. The aim of the present study is to provide a comprehensive theoretical review of the existing evidence to date and several Bayesian meta-analyses and meta-regressions to determine the size of the effect and explore the experimental conditions in which the effect surfaces. The results are discussed in the light of current debates about the functional origin of the semantic interference effect and its implications for our understanding of the language production system.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jml.2020.104125

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • With suitable timing, semantically related distractors slow down naming more than unrelated ones.

    “Moreover, with suitable timing of the distractors, semantically related distractors (e.g., “cat” for the picture of a dog) slow down naming more than unrelated ones (e.g. “fork” for the picture of a dog; see Burki, Elbuy, Madec, & Vasishth, 2020, for a review).”

    From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as Burki et al., 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bürki, A., Elbuy, S., Madec, S., & Vasishth, S.
Affiliations
University of Potsdam (DE)
Corresponding author
Bürki, Audrey
Venue
Journal of Memory and Language
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
114
Pages
104125
ISSN
0749-596X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3033954424
Cited by
124
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 4
FWCI
10.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Memory and Language (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • publish.UP (University of Potsdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (317633480 \u2013 SFB 1287, 317633480, SFB 1287)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
language production, lexical access, semantic categories, reaction time (psychology), distractor words, meta-regression

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review