Fig 1.
Mean reaction times (naming latency) and standard error (in milliseconds) observed in Experiment 1 broken down by ordinal position and word type.
Fig 2.
Visual illustration of the interaction between the interference effect (difference between mean naming latencies on ordinal position 1 and 5 (in ms)) and the semantic similarity rating score.
Table 1.
1000/RT ~ Word type*Ordinal position *Presentation + Word type*Ordinal position*Semantic similarity + Picture fit+ Trial + (Word type*Presentation+ Ordinal position +Picture fit+ Semantic similarity||Subject) + (1|Category \ Item).
Fig 3.
Mean reaction times (response latency) and standard error (in milliseconds) observed in Experiment 2 broken down by ordinal position.
Fig 4.
Visual representation of the facilitation effect in all five presentations.
Table 2.
-1000/RT ~ Word type*Ordinal position + Ordinal position *Presentation+ Ordinal position: Semantic similarity: Presentation+ Ordinal position: Semantic similarity + Semantic similarity + Ordinal position *Classification type+ Trial+(Word type* Ordinal position +Presentation+ Semantic similarity +Classification type||Subject) + (1|Category/Item)+ (0+Presentation||Category).
Fig 5.
Predicted facilitation effect of Experiment 2 (in ms) by the interference effect observed in Experiment 1 (in ms), broken down by word type condition.
Interference can only predict facilitation of simple nouns but not of compounds.
Fig 6.
Depiction of the interaction of Interference effect and Semantic similarity found in the analysis for simple nouns.
A strong interference effect (x-axis, in ms) predicts a weak facilitation effect (y-axis) but only for items that are less-closely related.