BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//ILCB - ECPv6.15.20//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:ILCB
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://www.ilcb.fr
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for ILCB
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/Paris
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20120325T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20121028T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20130331T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20131027T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20140330T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20141026T010000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Paris:20130607T160000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Paris:20130607T180000
DTSTAMP:20260426T055813
CREATED:20190213T083200Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20190213T083202Z
UID:2335-1370620800-1370628000@www.ilcb.fr
SUMMARY:Is lexical selection by competition ? by Robert Hartsuiker
DESCRIPTION:Is lexical selection by competition ? by Robert Hartsuiker (Ghent University)\nThere are several contrasting views on the mechanisms of lexical selection in language production. On one view\, words compete with each other for selection\, so that the time to select one word depends on the activation of competitors. This competitive view is often thought to be supported by semantic interference in picture-word tasks (name the picture\, ignore the distractor word). But on another view\, the time to select a word depends only on the activation of the highest activated lexical unit. This account is consistent with semantic facilitation in some versions of the picture-word task\, but requires an additional mechanism to account for semantic interference effects. Our work of the last few years has tested whether this mechanism is one of self-monitoring and covert error repair. On this view\, the distractor sometimes gets ahead of the picture name in production process. To prevent the inadvertent naming of the distractor\, it therefore needs to be filtered out covertly\, and the more difficult it is to detect and rule out the distractor\, the more naming will be delayed. To test this account\, we have conducted behavioral experiments and EEG experiments that manipulated parameters we suspect the self-monitoring system to be sensitive to\, such as lexical status of the distractor\, context (i.e.\, composition of list of stimuli)\, and even taboo status of the distractor word. Based on my review of this evidence I will argue that response exclusion by self-monitoring is a viable alternative to lexical selection by competition.
URL:https://www.ilcb.fr/event/is-lexical-selection-by-competition-by-robert-hartsuiker/
LOCATION:Salle des voûtes\, St Charles\, 3 place Victor Hugo\, Marseille\, 13001\, France
CATEGORIES:Seminars
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR