Ccessfully account for semantic interference from gato if it discarded the concept that semantic overlap from responseirrelevant distractors led to facilitation via semantic priming.However, then it would lose the ability to account for why perro yields facilitation, too as a variety of other facilitative effects inside the PWIliterature (e.g Mahon et al).Alternatively, the REH could say that semantic overlap among targets and distractors only yields priming, such that shared semantic capabilities usually do not make a potential response harder to exclude from the prearticulatory buffer.Having said that, this would render the REH incapable of accounting for standard semantic interference effects.At present, it remains unclear how the REH could account for the truth that distractors like perro yield facilitation even though distractors like gato yield interference.Observations of phonological facilitation may also pose complications for the REH.To the greatest of my know-how, the published literature does not contain any accounts of phonological facilitation under the REH a gap that should be important to fill.Broadly speaking, you can find two logical possibilities.If response exclusion processes are sensitive to phonological overlap amongst the distractor and the target, then it ought to be far more difficult to exclude a distractor that Isorhamnetin Purity shares the target’s phonology.This would predict that a distractor like doll, that is responserelevant and shares the target’s phonology, should yield slower reaction occasions than a distractor like table.This prediction stands in contrast for the empirical observation of facilitation for phonologically associated distractors.(The predictions for distractors like dama, that are phonologically related to the target but not responserelevant, are much less PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21542743 clear.Based on the explanation from the language effect for unrelated distractors, the REH may well predict that dama must confer far more facilitation, considering the fact that it could be a lot more swiftly rejected and however it confers priming to the target response.This conflicts together with the observation that samelanguage distractors like doll yield stronger facilitation, but a single could attribute that to phonological representations becoming only partially shared between languages) Alternatively, it’s conceivable that response exclusion processes are certainly not sensitive to phonology; beneath this account, phonological facilitation arises due to the fact even excluded responses pass activation on to the motor level; thus, when the target response activates some of the same motor units, the response may be executed more rapidly (Finkbeiner, personal communication).This account does satisfactorily explain phonological facilitation (which includes its late timecourse), but it seems odd to postulate that response exclusion processes wait to operate until responses are phonologically wellformed, but then do not think about phonological form in deciding which responses to exclude.This can be also at odds with evidence from Dhooge and Hartsuiker who hyperlink response exclusion to monitoring, that is believed to be sensitive to phonological form (Postma,).Therefore, the REH might be able to account for phonological facilitation, however it is hardly an intuitive consequence on the model’s architecture.A effective theory should also clarify why distractors like mu ca make weak facilitation.Recall that theories of selection by competitors accounted for facilitation from distractors like mu ca for the reason that they could be anticipated to activate their target language translation (doll), which shares phonolog.
