Abstract
Do people access the monetary value of banknotes when they say them aloud? In this study, we evaluated this question by asking people to name sequences of euro banknotes blocked by category or mixed with exemplars of other categories. The participants did not show an interference effect in the blocked context. The absence of semantic interference effect was also observed when participants named euro banknotes that did not have imprinted monetary value. These results suggest a direct connection between perceiving banknotes and accessing their names.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
Previous studies have found that the semantic interference observed with the blocking paradigm is a cumulative effect that increases after a substantial number of retrieval processes from the same semantic category (Belke et al. 2005; Damian and Als 2005; Navarrete et al. 2012). To evaluate whether this effect was present in the current study, an ANOVA was performed including the category (semantic vs. euro banknotes), the context (mixed vs. blocked), and the presentation cycle (1–5 from the first to the last presentation of each category exemplar in each of the four blocks of the experiment). There was a main effect of presentation cycle, F(4, 116) = 3.85, p < .01, η 2p = .12. However, none of the interactions including this factor were significant (all ps > .05). The lack of a presentation cycle × Context × Category interaction might be due to the fact that the current experiment was not designed to evaluate the cumulative nature of the semantic interference effect (i.e., the number of presentation cycles in this study was smaller than that of others, the number of semantic categories and exemplars in this study was different from others, etc.). However, it is important to note that regardless of these methodological differences we replicated the main effect of interference with semantic categories.
A new set of twenty-six participants rated the familiarity of pictures and banknotes used in the study in a 7 point scale where 1 was very low familiarity and 7 was very high familiarity. Inter-judge reliability score was .67. The familiarity of banknotes was similar (4.68, SD = 2.08) to that of pictures (4.01, SD = 0.79), t(23) = 1.19, p > .05.
Afterward, familiarity scores were correlated with context effects (mixed condition minus blocked condition) obtained in Experiment 1 with banknotes and semantic categories. There was a significant positive correlation between the magnitude of context effect and banknote familiarity, r = .98, p < .01, while a non–significant negative correlation was observed for pictures (r = –.23, p > .05).
References
Belke E, Meyer AS, Damian MF (2005) Refractory effects in semantic processing as assessed in a blocking paradigm. Q J Exp Psychol 58:667–692. doi:10.1080/02724980443000142
Campbell JID, Thompson VA (2002) More power to you: simple power calculations for treatment effects with one degree of freedom. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 34:332–337. doi:10.3758/BF03195460
Costantini M, Ambrosini E, Scorolli C, Borghi AM (2011) When objects are close to me: affordances in the perpersonal space. Psychon Bull Rev 18:302–308. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0054-4
Cuetos F, González–Nosti M, Barbón A, Brysbaert M (2011) Spanish word frequency based on film subtitles. Psicológica 32:133–143
Damian MF, Als LC (2005) Long–lasting semantic context effects in the spoken production of object names. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 31:1372–1384. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1372
Damian MF, Vigliocco G, Levelt WJM (2001) Effects of semantic context in the naming of pictures and words. Cogn 81:B77–B86. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(01),00135-4
Glaser WR (1992) Picture naming. Cognition 42:61–105. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(92)90040-O
Herrera A, Macizo P (2011) Naming digits in a semantic blocking paradigm. Q J Exp Psychol 64:328–338. doi:10(1080/17470218),2010,508532
Herrera A, Macizo P (2012) Semantic processing in the production of numerals across notations. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 28:40–51. doi:10.1037/a0024884
Kalénine S, Bonthoux F (2008) Object manipulability affects chindren’s and adults’ conceptual processing. Psychon Bull Rev 15:667–672. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.3.667
Kroll JF, Stewart E (1994) Category interference in translation and picture naming: evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. J Mem Lang 33:149–174. doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1008
La Heij W, Dirkx J, Kramer P (1990) Categorial interference and associative priming in picture naming. Br J Psychol 81:511–525. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1990.tb02376.x
Levelt WJM (1992) Accessing words in speech production: stages, processes and representations. Cogn 42:1–22. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(92)90038-J
McRae K, Cree GS, Seidenberg MS, McNorgan C (2005) Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behav Res Method 37:547–559. doi:10.3758/BF03192726
Moss HE, Ostrin RK, Tyler LK, Marslen–Wilson WD, (1995) Accessing different types of lexical semantic information: evidence from priming. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 21:863–883. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.863
Navarrete E, del Prato P, Mahon BZ (2012) Factors determining semantic facilitation and interference in the cyclic naming paradigm. Front Psychol 3:38. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00038
Pérez MA, Navalón C (2003) Normas españolas de 290 nuevos dibujos: acuerdo en la denominación, concordancia de la imagen, familiaridad, complejidad visual y variabilidad de la imagen [Spanish norms of 290 new pictures: naming agreement, picture agreement, familiarity, visual complexity and picture variability]. Psicol 24:215–241
Price HL, Connolly DA (2006) BatMon II: children’s category norms for 33 categories. Behav Res Method 38:529–531. doi:10.3758/BF03192808
Roelofs A (2006) Functional architecture of naming dice, digits, and number words. Lang Cogn Process 21:78–111. doi:10.1080/01690960400001846
Schneider W, Eschman A, Zuccolotto A (2002) E–Prime user’s guide (Version 1.1) Psychology Software Tools, Pittsburg
Snodgrass JG, Vanderwart M (1980) A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. J Exp Psychol: Human Learn Mem 6:174–215. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.174
Vigliocco G, Vinson DP, Damian MF, Levelt WJM (2002) Semantic distance effects on object and action naming. Cogn 85:B61–B69. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(02),00107-5
Vitkovitch M, Tyrrell L (1995) Sources of disagreement in object naming. Q J Exp Psychol 48A:822–848. doi: 10.1080/14640749508401419
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (research project PSI2012–32287) and by the Programa de Generación de Conocimiento Científico de Excelencia de la Fundación Séneca, Agencia de Ciencia y Tecnología de la Región de Murcia (research project 08741/PHCS/08).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Macizo, P., Herrera, A. Do people access meaning when they name banknotes?. Cogn Process 14, 43–49 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-012-0531-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-012-0531-3