Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-skzmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T09:07:43.259Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Naming latencies as evidence for two modes of lexical retrieval

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Harold Goodglass ,
Jean C. Theurkauf  and
Arthur Wingfield
Harold Goodglass*
Affiliation:
Boston VA Medical Center and Boston University
Jean C. Theurkauf
Affiliation:
Clark University
Arthur Wingfield
Affiliation:
Brandeis University
*
Dr. Harold Goodglass, Psychology Service, Boston V.A. Medical Center, 150 South Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02130
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Data are reported for response latencies to naming pictures of objects which show a systematic relationship between naming latency and two measures of item difficulty. Of primary interest was a reanalysis of full latency distributions on a picture-by-picture basis to explore the possibility that overall mean latencies could in actuality be composed of multiple independent latency populations. Results are discussed in terms of “automatic” versus “voluntary search” modes of word retrieval.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , August 1984 , pp. 135 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Brown, R., & McNeill, D. (1966). The ‘tip-of-the-tongue’ phenomenon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 325–337.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., & Richman, B. (1971). The American Heritage word frequency book Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Goodglass, H. (1980). Disorders of naming following brain injury. American Scientist, 68, 647–655.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., & Kubicek, L. F. (1983). The source of relatedness effects on naming latency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 486–496.Google Scholar
Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (1983). Boston Naming Test: Revised Edition. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger.Google Scholar
Koriat, A., & Lieblich, I. (1974). What does a person in a TOT state know that a person in a “don't know” state doesn't know? Memory and Cognition, 2, 647–655.Google Scholar
Newcombe, F., Oldfield, R. C., Ratcliff, G. G. & Wingfield, A. (1971). Recognition and naming of object-drawings by men with focal brain wounds. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 34, 329–340.Google ScholarPubMed
Newcombe, F., Oldfield, R. C., & Wingfield, A. (1965). Object-naming by dysphasic patients. Nature, 207, 1217–1218.Google Scholar
Oldfield, R. C., & Wingfield, A. (1964). The time it takes to name an object. Nature, 202, 1031–1032.Google Scholar
Oldfield, R. C., & Wingfield, A. (1965). Response latencies in naming objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17, 273–281.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. and Lorge, I.The Teacher's Word Book of 30,000 Words. New York: Columbia University Press, 1944.Google Scholar
Wingfield, A. (1967). The identification and naming of objects. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Wingfield, A. (1968). Effects of frequency on identification and naming of objects. American Journal of Psychology, 81, 226–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed