Response exclusion in word–word tasks: A comment on Roelofs, Piai and Schriefers

Niels Janssen
{"title":"Response exclusion in word–word tasks: A comment on Roelofs, Piai and Schriefers","authors":"Niels Janssen","doi":"10.1080/01690965.2012.746715","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Roelofs, Piai, and Schriefers discuss a series of results obtained from various word reading tasks in the context of word and picture distractors. They argue that these results support WEAVER++, a computational model of word production that assumes a competitive lexical selection mechanism, and challenge the response exclusion hypothesis, a model that assumes a non-competitive lexical selection mechanism. At odds with this claim, I argue here that these data do not pose problems for the response exclusion hypothesis. I also discuss new avenues of research to advance the debate on the mechanism of lexical selection.","PeriodicalId":87410,"journal":{"name":"Language and cognitive processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01690965.2012.746715","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language and cognitive processes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.746715","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Roelofs, Piai, and Schriefers discuss a series of results obtained from various word reading tasks in the context of word and picture distractors. They argue that these results support WEAVER++, a computational model of word production that assumes a competitive lexical selection mechanism, and challenge the response exclusion hypothesis, a model that assumes a non-competitive lexical selection mechanism. At odds with this claim, I argue here that these data do not pose problems for the response exclusion hypothesis. I also discuss new avenues of research to advance the debate on the mechanism of lexical selection.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
词-词任务中的反应排斥:对Roelofs、Piai和Schriefers的评析
Roelofs, Piai和Schriefers讨论了在文字和图片干扰的情况下,从各种单词阅读任务中获得的一系列结果。他们认为,这些结果支持WEAVER++,一个假设竞争性词汇选择机制的单词生成计算模型,并挑战了反应排斥假说,一个假设非竞争性词汇选择机制的模型。与这种说法不一致的是,我在这里认为,这些数据并没有对反应排除假说构成问题。本文还讨论了新的研究途径,以促进对词汇选择机制的争论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Referential choice across the lifespan: why children and elderly adults produce ambiguous pronouns. MEG evidence that the LIFG effect of object extraction requires similarity-based interference. Phonemes and Production. Memory availability and referential access. The architecture of speech production and the role of the phoneme in speech processing.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1