Acta Psychologica Sinica ›› 2021, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (1): 1-14.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00001
• Reports of Empirical Studies • Next Articles
ZHANG Qingfang1(), QIAN Zongyu1, ZHU Xuebing2()
Received:
2020-03-05
Published:
2021-01-25
Online:
2020-11-24
Contact:
ZHANG Qingfang,ZHU Xuebing
E-mail:qingfang.zhang@ruc.edu.cn;zhuxb@shisu.edu.cn
Supported by:
ZHANG Qingfang, QIAN Zongyu, ZHU Xuebing. (2021). The multiple phonological activation in Chinese spoken word production: An ERP study in a word translation task. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(1), 1-14.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://journal.psych.ac.cn/acps/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00001
Properties of experimental materials | Phonological condition | Semantic condition |
---|---|---|
Average log frequency of English words (per million) | 1.62 ± 0.55 | 1.05 ± 0.57 |
Phoneme length of English words | 4.89 ± 1.61 | 4.44 ± 1.61 |
Average log frequency of Chinese translation words (per million) | 4.40 ± 0.59 | 3.70 ± 0.55 |
Syllable number of Chinese translation words | 2 | 2 |
Table 1 Relevant properties of experimental materials
Properties of experimental materials | Phonological condition | Semantic condition |
---|---|---|
Average log frequency of English words (per million) | 1.62 ± 0.55 | 1.05 ± 0.57 |
Phoneme length of English words | 4.89 ± 1.61 | 4.44 ± 1.61 |
Average log frequency of Chinese translation words (per million) | 4.40 ± 0.59 | 3.70 ± 0.55 |
Syllable number of Chinese translation words | 2 | 2 |
Fixed factors | β | SE | df | t | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intercept | 955.72 | 14.67 | 52.35 | 65.13 | < 0.001 |
Distractor type | 13.40 | 7.61 | 8254.62 | 1.76 | 0.078 |
Relatedness | -0.85 | 7.59 | 8254.33 | -0.11 | 0.911 |
Repetition times | -77.95 | 7.56 | 8254.10 | -10.31 | < 0.001 |
Distractor type × Relatedness | 47.64 | 10.79 | 8254.57 | 4.42 | < 0.001 |
Distractor type × Repetition times | 12.10 | 10.72 | 8254.17 | 1.13 | 0.259 |
Relatedness × Repetition times | 9.03 | 10.70 | 8254.12 | 0.84 | 0.399 |
Distractor type × Relatedness × Repetition times | -39.58 | 15.20 | 8254.18 | -2.60 | 0.009 |
Table 2 Fixed effect of mixed-effect model with word translation latencies as dependent variable (considering repetition times)
Fixed factors | β | SE | df | t | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intercept | 955.72 | 14.67 | 52.35 | 65.13 | < 0.001 |
Distractor type | 13.40 | 7.61 | 8254.62 | 1.76 | 0.078 |
Relatedness | -0.85 | 7.59 | 8254.33 | -0.11 | 0.911 |
Repetition times | -77.95 | 7.56 | 8254.10 | -10.31 | < 0.001 |
Distractor type × Relatedness | 47.64 | 10.79 | 8254.57 | 4.42 | < 0.001 |
Distractor type × Repetition times | 12.10 | 10.72 | 8254.17 | 1.13 | 0.259 |
Relatedness × Repetition times | 9.03 | 10.70 | 8254.12 | 0.84 | 0.399 |
Distractor type × Relatedness × Repetition times | -39.58 | 15.20 | 8254.18 | -2.60 | 0.009 |
Time Window | ROIs | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Left | Middle | Right | ||||||||||||||||
Anterior | Central | Posterior | Anterior | Central | Posterior | Anterior | Central | Posterior | ||||||||||
F | $\eta^{2}_{P}$ | F | $\eta^{2}_{P}$ | F | $\eta^{2}_{P}$ | F | $\eta^{2}_{P}$ | F | $\eta^{2}_{P}$ | F | $\eta^{2}_{P}$ | F | $\eta^{2}_{P}$ | F | $\eta^{2}_{P}$ | F | $\eta^{2}_{P}$ | |
Phonological effect | ||||||||||||||||||
400-500 ms | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
500-600 ms | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
600-700 ms | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 5.45† | 0.17 | — | — | 5.65† | 0.18 | 6.75† | 0.21 | — | — |
Semantic effect | ||||||||||||||||||
400-500 ms | 3.96† | 0.13 | 12.67** | 0.33 | 12.99** | 0.33 | 11.56** | 0.31 | 10.00** | 0.28 | 4.67* | 0.15 | 6.55* | 0.20 | 7.07* | 0.21 | 5.97* | 0.19 |
500-600 ms | 3.50† | 0.12 | 14.20** | 0.35 | 11.71** | 0.31 | 8.34* | 0.24 | 15.03** | 0.37 | 8.35* | 0.24 | 6.66* | 0.20 | 11.72** | 0.31 | 6.81* | 0.21 |
600-700 ms | — | — | 5.81† | 0.18 | 5.90† | 0.19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 5.48† | 0.17 | — | — |
Table 3 Phonological and semantic effects in different regions of interest in 400-700 ms time window
Time Window | ROIs | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Left | Middle | Right | ||||||||||||||||
Anterior | Central | Posterior | Anterior | Central | Posterior | Anterior | Central | Posterior | ||||||||||
F | $\eta^{2}_{P}$ | F | $\eta^{2}_{P}$ | F | $\eta^{2}_{P}$ | F | $\eta^{2}_{P}$ | F | $\eta^{2}_{P}$ | F | $\eta^{2}_{P}$ | F | $\eta^{2}_{P}$ | F | $\eta^{2}_{P}$ | F | $\eta^{2}_{P}$ | |
Phonological effect | ||||||||||||||||||
400-500 ms | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
500-600 ms | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
600-700 ms | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 5.45† | 0.17 | — | — | 5.65† | 0.18 | 6.75† | 0.21 | — | — |
Semantic effect | ||||||||||||||||||
400-500 ms | 3.96† | 0.13 | 12.67** | 0.33 | 12.99** | 0.33 | 11.56** | 0.31 | 10.00** | 0.28 | 4.67* | 0.15 | 6.55* | 0.20 | 7.07* | 0.21 | 5.97* | 0.19 |
500-600 ms | 3.50† | 0.12 | 14.20** | 0.35 | 11.71** | 0.31 | 8.34* | 0.24 | 15.03** | 0.37 | 8.35* | 0.24 | 6.66* | 0.20 | 11.72** | 0.31 | 6.81* | 0.21 |
600-700 ms | — | — | 5.81† | 0.18 | 5.90† | 0.19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 5.48† | 0.17 | — | — |
Time Window | ROIs | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Left | Middle | Right | ||||||||
Anterior | Central | Posterior | Anterior | Central | Posterior | Anterior | Central | Posterior | ||
Phonological effect | ||||||||||
400-500 ms | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
500-600 ms | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
600-700 ms | — | — | — | — | 2.01 | — | 2.17 | 3.27 | — | |
Semantic effect | ||||||||||
400-500 ms | 1.12 | 24.44 | 27.00 | 17.18 | 10.29 | 1.49 | 3.04 | 3.68 | 2.45 | |
500-600 ms | 0.93 | 39.14 | 18.03 | 5.82 | 50.25 | 5.83 | 3.17 | 18.09 | 3.35 | |
600-700 ms | — | 2.30 | 2.38 | — | — | — | — | 2.04 | — |
Table 4 BF10 of phonological effect and semantic effect in different regions of interest in 400-700 ms time window
Time Window | ROIs | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Left | Middle | Right | ||||||||
Anterior | Central | Posterior | Anterior | Central | Posterior | Anterior | Central | Posterior | ||
Phonological effect | ||||||||||
400-500 ms | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
500-600 ms | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
600-700 ms | — | — | — | — | 2.01 | — | 2.17 | 3.27 | — | |
Semantic effect | ||||||||||
400-500 ms | 1.12 | 24.44 | 27.00 | 17.18 | 10.29 | 1.49 | 3.04 | 3.68 | 2.45 | |
500-600 ms | 0.93 | 39.14 | 18.03 | 5.82 | 50.25 | 5.83 | 3.17 | 18.09 | 3.35 | |
600-700 ms | — | 2.30 | 2.38 | — | — | — | — | 2.04 | — |
Figure 2. ERP waveform of semantic effect and phonological effect and the topographic distribution of difference waves of semantic effect and phonological effect. Note. The blue shaded areas were p < 0.05, the gray shaded areas were 0.05 < p < 0.1, p values were corrected by FDR.
Figure 3. Mean amplitudes of semantic effects in different ROIs in 400-600 ms time window. Note. The error bars are 95% CI, p values were corrected by FDR.
Figure 4. The negative correlation between the difference of word translation latencies (semantically related minus semantically unrelated) and the difference of mean amplitude (semantically related minus semantically unrelated) in 400-600 ms time window in middle posterior. The gray scattered point is the eliminated singular value.
[1] |
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390-412.
doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 URL |
[2] |
Bloem, I., & La Heij, W. (2003). Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in word translation: Implications for models of lexical access in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(3), 468-488.
doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00503-X URL |
[3] |
Bloem, I., van den Boogaard, S., & Heij, W. (2004). Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in language production: Further evidence for the conceptual selection model of lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(2), 307-323.
doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.001 URL |
[4] |
Boukadi, M., Davies, R. A. I., & Wilson, M. A. (2015). Bilingual lexical selection as a dynamic process: Evidence from Arabic-French bilinguals. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(4), 297-313.
doi: 10.1037/cep0000063 URL pmid: 26372057 |
[5] |
Cai, X., Yin, Y. L., & Zhang, Q. F. (2020). The roles of syllables and phonemes during phonological encoding in Chinese spoken word production: A topographic ERP study. Neuropsychologia, 140, 107382
doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107382 URL pmid: 32068028 |
[6] | Chen, B. G., Wang, L. X., & Peng, D. L. (2003). The time course of graphic, phonological, and semantic information processing in Chinese character recognition (II). Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35(5), 576-581. |
[7] | Chinese Linguistic Data,Consortium. (2003). 现代汉语通用词表[Chinese lexicon] (CLDC-LAC-2003-001). Beijing, China: Tsinghua University, State Key Laboratory of Intelligent Technology and Systems, and Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Automation. |
[8] |
Christoffels, I. K., Ganushchak, L., & Koester, D. (2013). Language conflict in translation: An ERP study of translation production. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 646-664.
doi: 10.1080/20445911.2013.821127 URL |
[9] |
Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 26(5), 1283-1296.
doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.26.5.1283 URL |
[10] |
Costa, A., Strijkers, K., Martin, C. D., & Thierry, G. (2009). The time course of word retrieval revealed by event-related brain potentials during overt speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(50), 21442-21446.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0908921106 URL pmid: 19934043 |
[11] |
Damian, M. F., & Bowers, J. S. (2003). Effects of orthography on speech production in a form-preparation paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(1), 119-132.
doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00008-1 URL |
[12] |
Damian, M. F., & Martin, R. C. (1999). Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25(2), 345-361.
doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.25.2.345 URL |
[13] |
Davis, C. J. (2005). N-Watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 65-70.
doi: 10.3758/BF03206399 URL |
[14] |
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93(3), 283-321.
URL pmid: 3749399 |
[15] |
Dell, G. S. (1988). The retrieval of phonological forms in production: Tests of predictions from a connectionist model. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(2), 124-142.
doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(88)90070-8 URL |
[16] |
Dell'Acqua, R., Sessa, P., Peressotti, F., Mulatti, C., Navarrete, E., & Grainger, J. (2010). ERP evidence for ultra-fast semantic processing in the picture-word interference paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 177
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00177 URL pmid: 21833238 |
[17] |
Ganushchak, L. Y., Christoffels, I. K., & Schiller, N. O. (2011). The use of electroencephalography in language production research: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 208.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00208 URL pmid: 21909333 |
[18] |
Humphreys, K. R., Boyd, C. H., & Watter, S. (2010). Phonological facilitation from pictures in a word association task: Evidence for routine cascaded processing in spoken word production. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(12), 2289-2296.
doi: 10.1080/17470218.2010.509802 URL |
[19] |
Indefrey, P., & Levelt, W. J. (2004). The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition, 92(1-2), 101-144.
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2002.06.001 URL pmid: 15037128 |
[20] | JASP Team. (2017). JASP (Version 0.11.1) [Computer software]. |
[21] | Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. |
[22] |
Jescheniak, J. D., Hahne, A., Hoffmann, S., & Wagner, V. (2006). Phonological activation of category coordinates during speech planning is observable in children but not in adults: Evidence for cascaded processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 32(2), 373-386.
doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.32.3.373 URL |
[23] |
Jescheniak, J. D., Hahne, A., & Schriefers, H. (2003). Information flow in the mental lexicon during speech planning: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 15(3), 261-276.
doi: 10.1016/S0926-6410(02)00198-2 URL |
[24] |
Jescheniak, J. D., & Schriefers, H. (1998). Discrete serial versus cascaded processing in lexical access in speech production: Further evidence from the coactivation of near-synonyms. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 24(5), 1256-1274.
doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.24.5.1256 URL |
[25] |
Jost, L. B., Radman, N., Buetler, K. A., & Annoni, J. M. (2018). Behavioral and electrophysiological signatures of word translation processes. Neuropsychologia, 109, 245-254.
doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.12.034 URL pmid: 29275005 |
[26] |
Kuipers, J. R., & Heij, W. (2009). The limitations of cascading in the speech production system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(1), 120-135.
doi: 10.1080/01690960802234177 URL |
[27] |
Kurtz, F., Schriefers, H., Madebach, A., & Jescheniak, J. D. (2018). Incremental learning in word production: Tracing the fate of non-selected alternative picture names. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(10), 1586-1602.
doi: 10.1037/xhp0000558 URL pmid: 29975094 |
[28] |
... Heij, W., Hooglander, A., Kerling, R., & van der Velden, E. (1996). Nonverbal context effects in forward and backward word translation: Evidence for concept mediation. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(5), 648-665.
doi: 10.1006/jmla.1996.0034 URL |
[29] | Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1-75. |
[30] |
Madebach, A., Jescheniak, J. D., Oppermann, F., & Schriefers, H. (2011). Ease of processing constrains the activation flow in the conceptual-lexical system during speech planning. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 37(3), 649-660.
doi: 10.1037/a0022330 URL |
[31] |
Marsman, M., & Wagenmakers, E-J. (2017). Bayesian benefits with JASP. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14(5), 545-555.
doi: 10.1080/17405629.2016.1259614 URL |
[32] |
Navarrete, E., & Costa, A. (2005). Phonological activation of ignored pictures: Further evidence for a cascade model of lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(3), 359-377.
doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.05.001 URL |
[33] |
Navarrete, E., & Costa, A. (2009). The distractor picture paradox in speech production: Evidence from the word translation task. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38(6), 527-547.
doi: 10.1007/s10936-009-9119-1 URL |
[34] |
Oppermann, F., Jescheniak, J. D., & Gorges, F. (2014). Resolving competition when naming an object in a multiple-object display. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(1), 78-84.
doi: 10.3758/s13423-013-0465-5 URL pmid: 23761213 |
[35] |
Oppermann, F., Jescheniak, J. D., & Schriefers, H. (2008). Conceptual coherence affects phonological activation of context objects during object naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 34(3), 587-601.
doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.587 URL |
[36] |
Ouyang, G., Sommer, W., Zhou, C. S., Aristei, S., Pinkpank, T., & Rahman, R. A. (2016). Articulation artifacts during overt language production in event-related brain potentials: Description and correction. Brain Topography, 29(6), 791-813.
doi: 10.1007/s10548-016-0515-1 URL pmid: 27509898 |
[37] |
Peterson, R. R., & Savoy, P. (1998). Lexical selection and phonological encoding during language production: Evidence for cascaded processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 24(3), 539-557.
doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.24.3.539 URL |
[38] |
Python, G., Fargier, R., & Laganaro, M. (2018). ERP evidence of distinct processes underlying semantic facilitation and interference in word production. Cortex, 99, 1-12.
doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2017.09.008 URL pmid: 29121484 |
[39] |
Qu, Q. Q., Damian, M. F. Kazanina, N. (2012). Sound-sized segments are significant for Mandarin speakers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(35), 14265-14270.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1200632109 URL |
[40] |
Qu, Q. Q., Damian, M. F., Zhang, Q. F., & Zhu, X. B. (2011). Phonology contributes to writing: Evidence from written word production in a nonalphabetic script. Psychological Science, 22(9), 1107-1112.
doi: 10.1177/0956797611417001 URL pmid: 21775652 |
[41] |
Rahman, R. A., & Melinger, A. (2009). Semantic context effects in language production: A swinging lexical network proposal and a review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(5), 713-734.
doi: 10.1080/01690960802597250 URL |
[42] |
Rahman, R. A., & Melinger, A. (2019). Semantic processing during language production: An update of the swinging lexical network. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(9), 1176-1192.
doi: 10.1080/23273798.2019.1599970 URL |
[43] |
Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42(1-3), 107-142.
doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(92)90041-f URL pmid: 1582154 |
[44] |
Roelofs, A. (1997). The weaver model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition, 64(3), 249-284.
doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(97)00027-9 URL pmid: 9426503 |
[45] |
Roelofs, A. (2008). Tracing attention and the activation flow in spoken word planning using eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 34(2), 353-368.
doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.353 URL |
[46] |
Starreveld, P. A., & Heij, W. (1995). Semantic interference, orthographic facilitation, and their interaction in naming tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(3), 686-698.
doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.21.3.686 URL |
[47] |
Starreveld, P. A., & Heij W. (1996). Time-course analysis of semantic and orthographic context effects in picture naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(4), 896-918.
doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.22.4.896 URL |
[48] |
Wagenmakers, E. J., Love, J., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Ly, A., Verhagen, J., ... Morey, R. D. (2018). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part II: Example applications with JASP. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(1), 58-76.
doi: 10.3758/s13423-017-1323-7 URL pmid: 28685272 |
[49] |
Wang, C. & Zhang, Q. F. (2015). Phonological codes constrain output of orthographic codes via sublexical and lexical routes in Chinese written production. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0124470.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124470 URL pmid: 25879662 |
[50] |
Zhang, Q. F., Chen, H.-C, Weekes, B. S., & Yang, Y. F. (2009). Independent effects of orthographic and phonological facilitation on spoken word production in Mandarin. Language and Speech, 52, 113-126.
doi: 10.1177/0023830908099885 URL pmid: 19334418 |
[51] |
Zhang, Q. F., & Damian, M. F. (2010). Impact of phonology on the generation of handwritten responses: Evidence from picture-word interference tasks. Memory and Cognition, 38(4), 519-528.
doi: 10.3758/MC.38.4.519 URL pmid: 20516232 |
[52] |
Zhang, Q. F., & Damian, M. F. (2019). Syllables constitute proximate units for Mandarin speakers: Electrophysiological evidence from a masked priming task. Psychophysiology, 56(4), e13317.
doi: 10.1111/psyp.13317 URL pmid: 30657602 |
[53] |
Zhang, Q. F., & Weekes, B. S. (2009). Orthographic facilitation effects on spoken word production: Evidence from Chinese. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(7-8), 1082-1096.
doi: 10.1080/01690960802042133 URL |
[54] | Zhang, Q. F., & Yang, Y. F. (2003). The determiners of picture-naming latency. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35(4), 447-454. |
[55] | Zhang, Q. F., & Yang, Y. F. (2006). The interaction of lexical selection and phonological encoding in Chinese word production. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 38(4), 480-488. |
[56] |
Zhang, Q. F., & Zhu, X. B. (2016). It is not necessary to retrieve the phonological nodes of context objects for Chinese speakers. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1161.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01161 URL pmid: 27540369 |
[57] |
Zhang, Q. F., Zhu, X. B., & Damian, M. F. (2018). Phonological activation of category coordinates in spoken word production: Evidence for cascaded processing in English but not in Mandarin. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39(5), 835-860.
doi: 10.1017/S0142716418000024 URL |
[58] |
Zhao, H. R., Heij, W., & Schiller, N. O. (2012). Orthographic and phonological facilitation in speech production: New evidence from picture naming in Chinese. Acta Psychologica, 139(2), 272-280.
doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.12.001 URL |
[59] | Zhou, X. L., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1999). Sublexcial processing in reading Chinese. In J. Wang, A. Inhoff, & H-C. Chen (Eds.), Reading Chinese script: A cognitive analysis (pp. 37-63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. |
[60] |
Zhou, X. L., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2000). The relative time course of semantic and phonological activation in reading Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1245-1265.
doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.26.5.1245 URL pmid: 11009256 |
[61] |
Zhu, X. B., Damian, M. F., & Zhang, Q. F. (2015). Seriality of semantic and phonological processes during overt speech in Mandarin as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language, 144, 16-25.
doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2015.03.007 URL pmid: 25880902 |
[62] |
Zhu, X. B., Zhang, Q. F., & Damian, M. F. (2016). Additivity of semantic and phonological effects: Evidence from speech production in Mandarin. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(11), 2285-2304.
doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1129427 URL pmid: 26730809 |
[63] | Zhuang, J., & Zhou, X. L. (2003). The interaction between semantics and phonology in the speech production of Chinese. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35(3), 300-308. |
[1] | ZHOU Yuxi, LIU Yuhao, ZHANG Qingfang. The influence of stimulus onset asynchrony on semantic effect in spoken word production: A picture-word interference paradigm study [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2022, 54(5): 453-465. |
[2] | ZHANG Qingfang, WANG Xuejiao. Primary phonological planning units in Chinese spoken word production: Evidence from an ERP study with implicit priming paradigm [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(4): 414-425. |
[3] | LOU Hao, LI Cong, ZHANG Qingfang. Distinct effects of age of acquisition in Chinese object and action picture naming: An ERP study [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(2): 143-153. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||