ReviewFrontiers in psychology2023
A cautionary note on the studies using the picture-word interference paradigm: the unwelcome consequences of the random use of "in/animates".
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The picture-word interference (PWI) paradigm allows us to delve into the process of lexical access in language production with great precision. It creates situations of interference between target pictures and superimposed distractor words that participants must consciously ignore to name the pictures. Yet, although the PWI paradigm has offered numerous insights at all levels of lexical representation, in this work we expose an extended lack of control regarding the variable animacy. Animacy has been shown to have a great impact on cognition, especially when it comes to the mechanisms of attention, which are highly biased toward animate entities to the detriment of inanimate objects. Furthermore, animate nouns have been shown to be semantically richer and prioritized during lexical access, with effects observable in multiple psycholinguistic tasks. Indeed, not only does the performance on a PWI task directly depend on the different stages of lexical access to nouns, but also attention has a fundamental role in it, as participants must focus on targets and ignore interfering distractors. We conducted a systematic review with the terms "picture-word interference paradigm" and "animacy" in the databases PsycInfo and Psychology Database. The search revealed that only 12 from a total of 193 PWI studies controlled for animacy, and only one considered it as a factor in the design. The remaining studies included animate and inanimate stimuli in their materials randomly, sometimes in a very disproportionate amount across conditions. We speculate about the possible impact of this uncontrolled variable mixing on many types of effects within the framework of multiple theories, namely the Animate Monitoring Hypothesis, the WEAVER++ model, and the Independent Network Model in an attempt to fuel the theoretical debate on this issue as well as the empirical research to turn speculations into knowledge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.