{"title":"词-词任务中的反应排斥:对Roelofs、Piai和Schriefers的评析","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":"{\"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}","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}
Response exclusion in word–word tasks: A comment on Roelofs, Piai and Schriefers
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.