Ccessfully account for semantic interference from gato if it discarded the idea that semantic overlap from responseirrelevant distractors led to facilitation via semantic priming.Nevertheless, then it would lose the ability to account for why perro yields facilitation, at the same time as a number of other facilitative effects within the PWIliterature (e.g Mahon et al).Alternatively, the REH could say that semantic overlap between targets and distractors only yields priming, such that shared semantic options do not make a potential response harder to exclude from the prearticulatory buffer.Even so, this would render the REH incapable of accounting for traditional semantic interference effects.At present, it remains unclear how the REH could account for the truth that distractors like perro yield facilitation although distractors like gato yield interference.Observations of phonological facilitation may well also pose problems for the REH.Towards the greatest of my knowledge, the published literature doesn’t include any accounts of phonological facilitation under the REH a gap which will be important to fill.Broadly speaking, you will discover two logical Tangeretin web possibilities.If response exclusion processes are sensitive to phonological overlap in between the distractor along with the target, then it ought to become much more complicated to exclude a distractor that shares the target’s phonology.This would predict that a distractor like doll, which is responserelevant and shares the target’s phonology, should really yield slower reaction times than a distractor like table.This prediction stands in contrast towards the empirical observation of facilitation for phonologically related distractors.(The predictions for distractors like dama, which are phonologically related towards the target but not responserelevant, are much less PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21542743 clear.Primarily based on the explanation with the language impact for unrelated distractors, the REH could predict that dama should confer more facilitation, given that it might be additional quickly rejected and yet it confers priming to the target response.This conflicts with all the observation that samelanguage distractors like doll yield stronger facilitation, but one particular could attribute that to phonological representations being only partially shared amongst languages) Alternatively, it is conceivable that response exclusion processes are usually not sensitive to phonology; beneath this account, phonological facilitation arises since even excluded responses pass activation on towards the motor level; hence, when the target response activates a number of the very same motor units, the response could be executed faster (Finkbeiner, individual communication).This account does satisfactorily clarify phonological facilitation (including its late timecourse), but it seems odd to postulate that response exclusion processes wait to operate till responses are phonologically wellformed, but then don’t contemplate phonological kind in deciding which responses to exclude.This is also at odds with evidence from Dhooge and Hartsuiker who hyperlink response exclusion to monitoring, that is believed to be sensitive to phonological kind (Postma,).Therefore, the REH could be capable to account for phonological facilitation, nevertheless it is hardly an intuitive consequence in the model’s architecture.A profitable theory need to also explain why distractors like mu ca generate weak facilitation.Recall that theories of selection by competition accounted for facilitation from distractors like mu ca due to the fact they would be anticipated to activate their target language translation (doll), which shares phonolog.
