Picture-Word Interference Effects Are Robust With Covert Retrieval, With and Without Gamification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The picture-word interference (PWI) paradigm has been used to investigate the time course of processes involved in word retrieval, but is challenging to implement online due to dependence on measurements of vocal reaction time. We performed a series of four experiments to examine picture-word interference and facilitation effects in a form of covert picture naming, with and without gamification. A target picture was accompanied by an audio word distractor that was either unrelated, phonologically-related, associatively-related, or categorically-related to the picture. Participants were instructed to judge whether the name of the target picture ended in the phoneme assigned to the block by pressing corresponding keys as quickly and accurately as possible. Experiments 1 and 2 successfully replicated categorical interference and phonological facilitation effects at different optimal stimulus-onset-asynchronies (SOAs) between words and pictures. Experiment 3 demonstrated that a key gamification feature (collecting coins) motivated faster speed at the expense of accuracy in the gamified vs. experimental format of the task. Experiment 4 adopted the optimal SOAs and verified that the gamification reveals expected interference and facilitation effects despite the speed-accuracy tradeoff. These studies confirmed that categorical interference occurs earlier than phonological facilitation, while both processes are independent from articulation and inherent to word retrieval itself. The covert PWI paradigm and its gamification have methodological value for neuroimaging studies in which articulatory artifacts obscure word retrieval processes, and may be developed into potential online word-finding assessments that can reveal word retrieval difficulties with greater sensitivity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".