Memory & Cognition 1998, 26 (4). 740-753

On the relationship between reading, listening, and speaking: It's different for people's names

TIMVALENTINE and JARROD HOLLIS Goldsmiths College, University ojLondon, London, England and VlVMOORE University ojDurham, Durham, England

Two experiments are reported that tested predictions derived from the framework of face, object, and word recognition proposed by Valentine, Brennen, and Bredart (1996). The findings were as fol­ lows: (1) Production of a celebrity's name in response to seeing the celebrity's face primed a subsequent familiarity decision to the celebrity's printed name. The degree of repetition priming observed was as great as that observed when a familiarity decision to the printed name was repeated in the prime and test phases of the experiment. (2) Makinga familiarity decision to an auditory presentation of a celebri­ ty's name primed a familiarity decision to the same celebrity's name presentedvisually.The magnitude of cross-modality priming was as great as the magnitude of within-modality repetition priming. This re­ sult for people's names contrasted with the effects observed in lexical decision tasks, in which no reli­ able cross-modality priming was observed. The results cannot be accounted for by previous models of face and name processing. They show a marked contrast between processing people's names and pro­ cessing words. The results supportthe framework proposed by Valentine et al. (1996).The implications for models of speech production, perception, and reading are discussed, together with the potential of the methodology to elucidate our understanding of proper name processing.

Models offace recognition have been developed by anal­ The first stage oflexical access involves access to a lexi­ ogy to models ofvisual word recognition. Hay and Young cal entry that specifies the lexical item, its syntactic (1982) and Bruce and Young (1986) explicitly derived the class, and its style ofuse, but not its phonological form. notion ofa face recognition unit, which was postulated to The phonology of the lexical item or word form is ac­ mediate recognition ofa familiar face, by analogy to Mor­ cessed subsequently. Most current models ofspeech pro­ ton's (1979) logogen model ofword recognition. A logogen duction include two stages oflexical access (Dell, 1986; is an entry in a mental lexicon that represents a specific Garrett, 1975, 1980; Levelt, 1989). The view that lexical known word. The logogen model included a single stage access involves two stages is so commonly held that the oflexical access for speech production (output logogens) current debate in the speech production literature con­ that was separate from modality-specific representations cerns whether semantic and phonological representa­ for word recognition (input logogens). The assumption of tions are activated in a strict sequence or whether activa­ separate lexical representations for recognition and produc­ tion can flow interactively between the semantic and tion ofwords is typical ofcurrent models ofword recogni­ phonological representations. tion (see, e.g., Ellis & Young, 1988; Seidenberg, 1988). As Bredart and Valentine (1992) pointed out that naming a result ofthe analogy with visual word recognition, it has a familiar face is an act ofspeech production. Itwould be been assumed that production ofpeople's names involves a surprising if naming a face involved a different process single stage ofaccess to a phonological representation that oflexical access from that involved in speech production. is separate from the representations required to recognize a They showed that the pattern ofsemantic and phonolog­ printed or written name (see, e.g., Burton, Bruce, & John­ ical errors that occurred in a face naming task was the same ston, 1990; Valentine, Bredart, Lawson, & Ward, 1991). as that observed in an analogous object naming task. There­ In contrast, models of speech production assume that fore, Bredart and Valentine proposed that models offace lexical access involves two stages. The message to be ar­ naming (see, e.g., Bruce & Young, 1986) need to be mod­ ticulated is formulated in a nonlexical conceptual system. ified to include two stages oflexical access. Valentine, Brennen, and Bredart (1996) outlined a com­ This research was supported by a grant from the Economic and So­ prehensive framework that aimed to make explicit the re­ cial Research Council (Grant R000234612). Correspondence should be lationship between face recognition, word recognition, addressed to T. Valentine, Department ofPsychology, Goldsmiths Col­ and object recognition in a model that takes account of lege, University of London, New Cross, London SEI4 6NW, England current models ofspeech production. This enterprise re­ (e-mail: [email protected]). quired them to address the relationship between input and -Accepted by previous editor, Geoffrey R. Loftus output processes. Valentine et al. (1996) followed the

Copyright 1998 Psychonomic Society, Inc. 740 PROCESSING PEOPLE'S NAMES 741 model outlined by Roelofs (1992) by proposing that there represented in an orthographic input lexicon. The frame­ is a single semantic lexicon that mediates both lexical work proposed is shown in Figure 1. A detailed discus­ access in speech production and identification of lexical sion ofthe framework and its development can be found entries from their word forms, but that the phonological in Valentine et al. (1996). output lexicon is separate from the phonological input In the domain ofauditory word recognition and speech lexicon. Visual word forms are assumed to be separately production, the issue of whether input and output repre-

Name~w~d /name or word!

input (structural) input input code code code

object visual word auditory word face recognition recognition recognition units recognition units units units

j

person identity identity- f general nodes ~ specific f semantic (toIcen markers) semantics I system

aa:esln ...-01 descriptive properties semantic lexicon (lemmas) -- iemmaS fCi - r people's names aa:essIn rwned target person

pha'lological orthogaphy ~ output lexicon 14- - phonology I+- (Iexemes) ca'lVersion ~

pha'letic plan

articulatia'l

naming+ response Figure 1. A functional model of face, name, word, and object recognition. From The Cognitive Psychology ofProper Names: On the Importance ofBeing Ernest, p. 172, by T. Valentine, T. Brennen, and S. Bredart, 1996, London: Rout­ ledge. Copyright 1996 by Routledge. Reprinted with permission. 742 VALENTINE, HOLLIS, AND MOORE

sentations are shared or separate is unresolved. However, termines the strength of connectivity in both directions. the existence of a common semantic lexicon and sepa­ This assumption has been made in interactive activation rate phonological lexicons is broadly consistent with the models offace and name processing (Bredart, Valentine, available data (see Monsell, 1987,1 and Shallice, 1988, Calder, & Gassi, 1995; Burton et al., 1990). for reviews.) It is possible to derive two predictions from the frame­ Repetition Priming Between Name Production work shown in Figure 1that differ from those derived from and Name Recognition earlier models of face and name processing (e.g., Burton If a subject sees the face of a celebrity and names it, et al., 1990; Valentine et al., 1991). Both predictions de­ according to the framework shown in Figure 1, the input pend upon the role ofthe person identity nodes (PINs) in code would activate the appropriate face recognition unit. mediating recognition of people's faces and names, or, The corresponding PIN would become activated and more specifically, on the strengthening of the link be­ pass activationon to the appropriate lemma for the celebri­ tween a PIN and the corresponding lemma for the per­ ty's name, before the phonology ofthe name is retrieved son's name that results from retrieval or recognition ofa and passed for articulation. Ifsubsequently the subject is person's name. requiredto decide whether the printedname ofthe celebrity One prediction is that producing a person's name in is familiar, a different input is activated. The appropriate response to seeing his/her face should prime recognition visual word recognition unit will become active and will ofhis/her name; the second prediction is that repetition in turn activate a matching lemma for the celebrity's priming offamiliarity decisions to people's names should name. Sincea familiarity decision fora person's name must cross input modality. (That is, having decided that a heard be based on activation ofthe PIN, activation must flow name ofa celebrity is familiar should prime a subsequent to the appropriate person identity node and activate it decision that a written version of the same celebrity's name abovethreshold before a familiarity decision can be made. is familiar.) The former prediction was tested in Experi­ The only processing stages that naming a celebrity's ment 1 and the latter was tested in Experiment 2. For each face and making a familiarity decision to his/her written prediction, we describe how the prediction is derived name have in common is activation ofthe PIN-activa­ from the framework and what prediction would be de­ tion spreading along the PIN-lemma link and activation rived from earlier models offace and name recognition. ofthe lemma for the celebrity's name. The flow ofactiva­ Wealso considerwhether the prediction would be expected tion is in the opposite direction in the two tasks. If it is to hold for analogous word recognition and production assumed that prior activation of a link results in a tasks and review the relevant evidence. strengthening ofconnectivity, and that the strength ofthe Three processing assumptions underlie the predictions connection is the same in both directions, it would be made: (1) It is assumed that familiarity decisions about predicted that naming a celebrity's face would produce an people's names and faces are based on the activation of effect ofrepetition priming on a subsequent familiarity PINs passing a threshold. This follows assumptions decision to his/her name. The strengthened lemma-PIN made by Burton et al. (1990) from an implementation of link would lead to a faster rise in activation at the PIN than face processing models using an interactive activation would be the case if the name familiarity decision was un­ and competition architecture. Similarly, it is assumed primed. Under these processing assumptions, there is no that lexical decisions are based on the activation oflem­ reason why the degree of priming from naming a face mas (units in the semantic lexicon). It should be noted that should be any less than that which would be observed if both assumptions require that the relevant decision is a name familiarity decision to the same name was re­ made on the basis ofactivation ofthe node or unit that is peated. Repeating the same task between the prime and connected directly to nonlinguistic semantic representa­ test phase would prime links between earlier stages, tions. PINs have the role of "token markers" via which whereas a face naming task would prime only the PIN­ information about specific individuals is accessed. Token lemma link. However, effects at different levels in an in­ markers distinguish the cognitive processing of proper teractive activation model are not additive. Therefore, it names and common names (see Valentine et al., 1996). is possible that priming at the final level of processing Thus lemmas for common names access semantic mem­ may obscure any effects at earlier stages, especially if the ory directly, but lemmas for people's names access se­ unprimed access to that final stage is particularly slow or mantic memory only via PINs. (2) Repetition priming is difficult. the facilitation of processing a stimulus that results from It should be noted that the framework predicts a prim­ a prior processing episode ofthe same stimulus. It is as­ ing effect only from face naming. If the prime task in­ sumed that repetition priming results from a strengthen­ volved a familiarity decision to a famous face, no effect ing of a connection between units at different levels in ofpriming would be predicted. A familiarity decision to the framework. The interpretation of repetition priming a face could be made on the basis of the activity of the as a strengthening ofconnections was proposed by Bur­ PIN. There would be no requirement for the lemma for ton et ai. (1990); Monsell, Matthews, and Miller (1992); the celebrity's name to be activated to perform the task. and Vitkovitch and Humphreys (1991). (3) It is assumed If the processing during the prime phase was carried out that links are bidirectional and that a single weight de- only as far as the PIN, no priming effect would be pre- PROCESSING PEOPLE'S NAMES 743 dieted because the weight ofthe PIN-lemma link would prime tasks. In one condition, the prime task was the same not have been strengthened during the prime phase. as the test task-a name familiarity decision task. This It can be concluded that the framework shown in Fig­ condition was included to provide a baseline ofthe max­ ure 1predicts an effect of repetition priming between pro­ imum effect ofpriming that would be observed in the test duction and recognition of people's names. Could this task. Since both the stimuli and the processing ofprimed prediction have been derived from previous models offace items would be identical in both the prime and test phases, and name recognition? The models of face and name the conditions would maximize any facilitation from recognition described by Burton et al. (1990) and Valen­ prior processing due to transfer-appropriate training or tine et al. (1991) assume that recognition ofnames is me­ perceptual fluency.A set of 15 famous names was included diated by a set of units (name recognition units) analo­ in both the prime and test phases. These items formed gous to face recognition units, which access PINs directly the set ofprimed items. It was predicted that reaction times and serve only to mediate recognition offamiliar names. (RTs) ofcorrect decisions to the primed items would be The only processing stage that naming a face and recog­ faster than RTs to unprimed items. In the second prime nizing a name have in common is activation ofthe appro­ condition, subjects named famous faces in the prime task. priate PIN. Since there are no links in common, and it is It was predicted that the effect ofpriming in the test task assumed that repetition priming arises from a strength­ resulting from this prime task would be as great as that ening of links, there is no mechanism from which these observed from the name familiarity decision prime task. models can predict repetition priming. The third prime condition required subjects to make fa­ The framework shown in Figure 1 predicts repetition miliarity decisions to faces. This condition was included priming of recognition ofa celebrity's name from nam­ to establish whether it was necessary for faces to be named ing his/her face. But it does not predict the analogous during the prime phase for a priming effect to be observed. priming ofrecognition ofan object's name from having previously named the object. Object naming proceeds EXPERIMENT 1 via object recognition units and activation ofsemantic in­ formation to activate the appropriate lemma. Recogni­ Method tion of an object name is based on activation ofthe lemma Subjects. Sixty volunteers took part in the experiment. from the appropriate word recognition unit (or logogen). Stimuli. The experimental stimuli consisted of photographs of Since there are no links shared by the processing re­ 90 celebrities, names of 55 of these celebrities, 80 photographs of unfamiliar people, and 40 unfamiliar names. (All of the stimuli quired by the two tasks, there is no mechanism for repe­ used for the experimental trials are listed in Appendix A.) Suffi­ tition priming. If the test task requires activation of se­ cient additional stimuli to provide 10 practice trials for each prime mantic information, repetition priming would be found. task and the test task were also obtained. The photographs of faces Object naming can proceed only via the semantic sys­ were monochrome images of 256 X 256 pixels in 16 gray levels tem. In this case the links between semantic information displayed at a screen resolution of 640 x 480 pixels. The celebri­ and the lemma would be activated in object naming and ties selected were famous people from the following categories: television personalities (35), film stars (29), pop stars (7), sports in the test task and so could provide a locus for repetition personalities (7), politicians (10), and businesspeople (2). They priming. We discuss this issue in more detail in relation were selected by one of the experimenters on the basis of their fa­ to Experiment 2. miliarity to students. The most familiar celebrities were chosen, The experimental literature shows that naming an ob­ within the constraint of the availability of a good quality photo­ ject does not prime recognition ofthe object's name. In­ graph. Photographs were from a collection of pictures taken from deed, this result was one ofthe experimental findings that magazines or stills from television programs. Photographs ofunfa­ led Morton (1979) to distinguish output logogens from miliar faces were unknown people collected from the same sources (e.g., models from magazine advertisements). This ensured that the input logogens. Winnick and Daniel (1970) showed that quality and style of photographs offamiliar and unfamiliar people producing an object name in naming a picture or in re­ were similar. sponding to a definition did not decrease the exposure Apparatus. The stimuli for all tasks were presented on the screen duration required for subjects to subsequently identify ofa PC. The subjects' response was logged by using keypresses on the printed name ofthe object. Scarborough, Gerard, and the keyboard. The experiment was programmed using Micro Ex­ Cortese (1979) found that naming an object did not perimental Laboratory software (Schneider, 1988). RT was recorded with millisecond accuracy. prime a subsequent lexical decision to the printed name Design. The experiment consisted of two phases, a prime phase ofthe object. and a test phase. It had a mixed design with two factors: prime task The aim ofExperiment 1was to test the prediction that (face naming, face familiarity decision, and name familiarity deci­ naming a celebrity's face will prime a subsequent famil­ sion) and priming (primed vs. unprimed items). Each subject took iarity decision to his/her name. The experiment had two part in one of three prime tasks, and each prime task was carried out phases, a prime phase and a test phase. The test phase was by 20 subjects. Therefore, prime task was a between-subjects fac­ tor. The effect of priming was a within-subjects factor. There were the same for all subjects and required subjects to decide two sets of 15 critical items. One set was included in both the prime whether a name presented on a computer screen was fa­ and test phases. Responses to these items formed the data from miliar or not. In the prime phase, there were three differ­ "primed" items. The other set of 15 critical items appeared only in ent conditions; each subject took part in only one ofthe the test phase. Responses to these items formed the data from "un- 744 VALENTINE, HOLLIS, AND MOORE

primed" items. The assignment of items to the primed and un­ phase. Data from 7.3% of the critical items in the test primed conditions was counterbalanced across subjects for each phase were excluded from analysis because oferrors made prime task. in either phase. Response accuracy is shown in Table 1 All subjects took part in an identical test phase. They made fa­ as a function of prime task and priming condition. The miliarity decisions to names (first and surnames) presented on the PC screen. Halfwere famous names and halfwere unfamiliar names. error rate to primed items was higher than to unprimed The dependent variables were the mean latency of correct responses items because a primed item was counted as an error un­ to "critical" famous names and the accuracy of responses to these less a correct response was made in both the prime and the items during the test phase. test phases but only a correct response in the test phase was Procedure. The following details applied to all tasks (three necessary for an unprimed item. This effect is particularly prime tasks and the test task). Each task commenced with 10 prac­ marked when the prime task is face naming because nam­ tice items. Each trial consisted of a 250-msec tone followed after 500 msec by presentation ofthe stimulus. With the exception ofthe ing celebrities' faces out ofcontext is a notoriously dif­ 15 primed items, no other items were repeated between prime and ficult task. No further analysis of accuracy data or ofre­ test tasks (including practice items). In all prime tasks, the faces or sponses made during the prime phase was carried out. names ofthe same celebrities were included as stimuli. Mean RT of correct responses to critical items in the In the face naming prime task, a picture of a celebrity was pre­ test phase are plotted in Figure 2. In panel A, the mean sented in each trial. The subject's task was to name the celebrity for each experimental condition is plotted. The effect of aloud. If necessary, the experimenter cued the subject with the priming is illustrated in panel B, in which the difference celebrity's first name. However, the first name cue rarely elicited the full name from the subject. Therefore, in most cases, data from between RT to unprimed and primed items is plotted. these items collected during the test phase were excluded from the The error bars indicate the appropriate 95% confidence data analysis (see below). The experimenter coded the subject's nam­ intervals from the subjects and items analyses reported ing as accurate or inaccurate by making a keypress on the computer below. The data illustrated in panel A were subjected to keyboard. The stimulus remained on the screen until the experi­ a 3 X 2 split-plot analysis ofvariance (ANOVA), taking menter entered a keypress. Seventy-five photographs ofcelebrities subjects as the random factor (identified below with the were presented. The names of 15 ofthese celebrities were included in the test task. suffix 1) and to an ANOVA with repeated measures on The procedure for the face familiarity decision prime task was both factors, taking items as the random factor (identified the same as the face naming task except for the following details. below by the suffix 2). Faces of40 celebrities and 40 unfamiliar faces were presented. Sub­ The main effect ofprime task was significant [F](2,57) jects were instructed to decide whether each face was familiar to = 4.03, MSe = 35,544.54, P < .025; Fz(2,58) = 70.66, them or not. They made their responses by pressing a "yes" or a "no" MS = 3,348.34, P < .0001]. Mean RT following face key on the keyboard. Subjects were instructed to respond as quickly e and as accurately as possible. The subject's response terminated dis­ naming prime task was 771 msec; RT following face fa­ play of the stimulus. miliarity decision prime task was 794 msec; RT follow­ The procedure was identical for the name familiarity decision ing name familiarity decision prime task was 681 msec. prime task and the test task. In each trial, a full name was presented Newman-Keuls pairwise comparisons revealed that RT in the center of the screen. The subjects were instructed to decide in the test task following a name familiarity decision task whether each name was familiar to them or not. They made their re­ in the prime phase was significantly faster than RT fol­ sponses by pressing a "yes" or a "no" key on the keyboard. Subjects lowing the prime tasks in which faces were presented were instructed to respond as quickly and as accurately as possible. The subject's response terminated display ofthe stimulus. Names of (p, < .05,Pi < .01). This result reflects a task practice ef­ 40 celebrities and 40 unfamiliar names were presented in both the fect. Carrying out the same task during the prime and name familiarity decision prime task and the test task. (The only test phases ofthe experiment speeded RT to all items in items repeated between the tasks were the 15 primed items.) the test phase (primed and unprimed items). Further Newman-Keuls pairwise comparisons on items analysis Results data also revealed that RTs in the test phase were signif­ Responses to the 15critical primed and unprimed items icantly faster following face naming than they were fol­ during the test phase were subjected to analysis. A re­ lowing face familiarity decision (pz <.05). This effect sponse was included in the analyses only if the correct (whichwas not significant in the subjects analysis in which response was given in both the prime phase and the test prime task was a between-subjects factor) was modified

Table 1 Mean Number of Errors Per Subject in Experiment 1 (Maximum = 15) as a Function of Prime Task and Prime Condition Face Familiarity Name Familiarity Prime Face Naming Decision Decision Mean Modality M % SD % M % SD % M % SD % M % SD % Primed 2.25 15.00 1.97 13.13 1.35 9.00 2.03 13.53 1.15 7.67 0.93 6.20 1.58 10.53 1.79 11.93 Unprimed 0.55 3.67 0.76 5.07 0.40 2.67 0.82 5.47 0.85 5.67 0.93 0.62 0.60 4.00 0.85 5.67 Mean 1.40 9.33 1.71 11.40 0.87 5.80 1.60 10.67 1.00 6.67 0.93 6.20 Note-Error rates for primed stimuli include trials on which an error was made in either the prime phase or the test phase. PROCESSING PEOPLE'S NAMES 745

(A)

900

850

() 800 Gl ~Face Naming III g 750 -X-Name Fam. Dec. I-a: 700 -X -.-Face Fam. Dec. .1. 650 x- 600 t I Primed Unprimed

(B)

100 u CII III .€ 75 ~ E 50 1: Co ~ a: 25 I .. ~ 0 E . 1: cCo 2- -25 I-a: -50 FaceNaming Name Fam. Dec. FaceFam Dec. PrimeTask

Figure 2. Results of Experiment 1. In panel A, the mean reaction time (RT) to accept famous names as familiar in the test phase is plotted as a function of priming condition and prime task. The "plus" error bars indicate the 95% confidence interval for the between­ subjects factor from the subjects analysis. (This confidence interval is applicable only to the effect of prime task.) The "minus" error bars indicate the 95% confidence interval for the within-items factors from the items analysis. (This confidence interval is applicable to both factors.) In panel B, the facilitation ofRT in the test phase due to repetition priming is plotted as the difference between RT to unprimed items and primed items. The "plus" error bars indicate the 95% confidence interval for the difference between means for the within-subjects factor of priming from the subjects analysis. The "minus" error bars in­ dicate the same 95% confidence interval from the items analysis. Confidence intervals have been calculated using the procedure described by Loftus and Masson (1994). by a significant interaction (reported below) and is en­ 5,647.43,p = .065]. Analysis ofsimple main effects re­ tirely attributable to faster RTs to primed items in the vealed a significant effect ofpriming following the face face naming task. naming task [FI(l,57) = 10.78, MSe = 1,971.17, p < The main effect ofpriming was significant [FI(1,57) = .005; F2Cl,29) = 10.14, MSe = 3,809.00,p < .005] and 18.15, MSe = 35,776.53,p < .001; F2(l,29) = 14.97, MSe following the name familiarity decision task [F ICI ,57) = = 4,125.09,p < .001]. Mean RTs were 731 and 766 msec 12.83, MSe = 1,971.17, P < .001; F2(l,29) = 14.97, to primed and unprimed items, respectively. MSe = 4,125.09,p < .001], but no effect ofpriming from The interaction between the factors ofprime task and the face familiarity decision task (F] < 1; F2 < 1). priming was significant in the items analysis [F2C2,58) = In order to assess whether the effect of priming fol­ 4.00, MS e = 3,279.88, P < .05] and approached signifi­ lowing the face naming task was equivalent to that ofthe cance in the subjects analysis [F 1C2,57) = 2.87, MSe = priming observed following the name familiarity deci- 746 VALENTINE, HOLLIS, AND MOORE

sion task, further two-way analyses were carried out that It could be argued that the facilitation due to repetition included only data from these two tasks. These analyses resulted from a strategy of response learning. Subjects showed that there was no interaction between the effect might have learned that repetitions detected between the ofpriming and prime task (FI < 1; F2 < 1). Therefore, it prime and test phase were associated with a "yes" re­ can be concluded that the effect of priming following sponse. However, this hypothesis predicts that repetition face naming was equivalent to the effect ofpriming found priming would have been observed in all three priming when name familiarity decision tasks were carried out in conditions. both the prime and the test phase. It would be possible to argue that the priming effect The mean RT of correct decisions to unfamiliar names was a result ofexcluding from the analysis items that had presented in the test phase was 965 msec (SD = 238 msec) elicited an error during the prime phase. This may have for subjectswho named faces in the prime phase; 797 msec eliminated potentially slow responses to the less famil­ (SD = 131 msec) for subjects who made familiarity deci­ iar items from the primed condition but not from the un­ sions to names in the prime phase, and 926 msec (SD = primed condition. This account is perfectly plausible but 200 msec) for subjects who made familiarity decisions to cannot explain the pattern ofresults observed. It cannot faces presented in the prime phase. explain why priming was not observed following a face familiarity decision task. The difference in the error rate Discussion to primed and unprimed items was greater following face The predictions derived from the Valentineet al. (1996) familiarity decisions (1.35 vs. 0.40 errors, respectively) framework were supported by the results ofExperiment 1. than it was following name familiarity decisions (1.15 Naming a famous face provided as much facilitation of vs. 0.85 errors, respectively). Therefore, this explanation a subsequent familiarity decision to the celebrity's name would tend to predict a greater effect ofpriming from face as did a prior name familiarity decision. This result is familiarity decision than from name familiarity decision. consistent with strengthening of the PIN-lemma link In fact, priming was greater following the name famil­ forming the basis ofthe observed repetition priming. Fur­ iarity decision. thermore, ifthe priming task required face recognition, In conclusion, the results of Experiment 1 are inter­ but did not require access to the celebrity's name, no re­ preted as strong empirical support for the framework liable effect ofrepetition priming was found. Thus access shown in Figure 1. to the name during the prime task is required to obtain a statistically significant effect ofrepetition priming. EXPERIMENT 2 Repetition priming from production to recognition of a person's name is not predicted by previous models of A further prediction derived from the Valentine et al. the relationship between name recognition and face nam­ (1996) framework is that repetition priming ofname fa­ ing (Burton et aI., 1990; Valentine et aI., 1991). The new miliarity decisions to people's names should cross input framework can also account for repetition priming being modality. That is, having heard a familiar name during a observed between production and recognition of peo­ prime phase should prime a familiarity decision to a vi­ ple's names but not between production and recognition sually presented name to the same extent as having seen ofobject names, as reported in the literature. the name during the prime phase. The prediction arises The effects ofrepetition priming observed in Experi­ because it is assumed that name familiarity decisions are ment 1 cannot be readily explained by other theories of based on the level ofactivation ofthe PIN. The link from repetition priming. The effects cannot be explained by the semantic lexicon to the PIN is utilized regardless of perceptual fluency (Jacoby & Dallas, 1981) because as the input modality. Therefore, ifthe strength ofthis link much facilitation was observed when different stimuli is increased by a recent presentation ofa name (in either were presented in the prime and test phases (faces and modality), repetition priming will be observed. names) as when names were presented in both phases. Previous models of face and name processing do not Any account that predicts that facilitation is influenced address the issue ofwhether repetition priming ofname by the similarity between the processing tasks carried recognition would be modality specific because they have out in the prime and test phases cannot account for the considered only recognition of visual names (Burton data (e.g., transfer-appropriate training, Blaxton, 1989; et aI., 1990; Valentine et aI., 1991). These models could Roediger & Blaxton, 1987; Roediger, Weldon, & Chal­ easily be extended to allow auditory input ofnames. The lis, 1989). Contrary to such accounts, the effect ofprim­ way in which the models are extended would determine ing observed when the tasks carried out in the prime and the prediction that would be derived. test phases were different was equivalent to the magnitude Ifit is assumed that name recognition (or input) units ofpriming observed when the tasks were identical. The are modality specific, and therefore that recognition of prime task that did not produce a reliable effect ofrepe­ heard names is mediated by a set of recognition units tition priming (face familiarity decision) involved the separate from those serving visual recognition, reduced or same decision as the test phase (name familiarity deci­ no cross-modality repetition priming would be predicted. sion), although the stimulus differed. Ifit is assumed that repetition priming is mediated only PROCESSING PEOPLE'S NAMES 747

by strengthening ofa link betweenmodality-specific name tification of briefly exposed words (35 msec) from prior recognition units and the PIN, no repetition priming study ofvisual words but no facilitation from prior study would be predicted. Reduced repetition priming would ofauditory presentation ofwords. be predicted ifit is assumed that, in part, repetition prim­ Kirsner and Smith (1974) and Kirsner, Milech, and ing of the test task is supported by strengthening oflinks Standen (1983) found that auditory presentation of primes between the PIN and semantic information units. This produced significant priming ofvisual lexical decisions, source of repetition priming would be observed only if but the priming effect was significantly smaller than that processing in both the prime and test task included ac­ obtained from visual presentation ofprimes. Kirsner et al. cess to identity-specific semantic information. interpreted their results in terms oftwo loci ofrepetition However, if it is assumed that name recognition (or priming: a modality-specific component that reflects fa­ input) units are common to both auditory and visual rec­ cilitation ofword identification and a modality-free com­ ognition of names, the models would predict cross­ ponent that is associated with access to semantic repre­ modality that is equivalent to within-modality priming. sentations. The framework shown in Figure 1 is entirely Essentially, in this case the models would predict cross­ consistent with this interpretation. modality priming for the same reason as the framework Hunt and Toth (1990) and Weldon (1991) found sig­ in Figure 1. However, these models could not predict the nificant facilitation of a visual word fragment comple­ priming ofname recognition by name production, as found tion task from auditory presentation ofprimes, but visual in Experiment 1. presentation of the priming stimuli produced signifi­ The prediction of cross-modality priming of equiva­ cantly greater facilitation. Graf, Shimamura, and Squire lent extent to within-modality priming for people's names (1985) found that cross-modality priming ofa visual word­ contrasts with the prediction that would be derived for stem completion task showed a significant effect, but word recognition. Ifit is assumed that words can be iden­ one that was significantly smaller than the effect of within­ tified on the basis of activity of a unit in the semantic modality priming. Bassili, Smith, and MacLeod (1989) ex­ lexicon, there should be no transfer ofrepetition priming tended this finding to include within- and cross-modality across modality. If, however, the task required during the priming ofboth visual word-stem completion and an au­ test phase requires access to the semantic system and the ditory analogue of the task. For both modalities of the meaning of the word was activated during the priming test task, priming from cross-modality primes was sig­ event, strengthening ofthe links between the lemma and nificant but significantly less than the effect ofwithin­ units in the semantic system might support a repetition modality primes. priming effect. Therefore, the prediction depends on the To summarize, perceptual identification tasks in which extent of semantic processing required to complete the the perceptual information is severely degraded-for ex­ test task, assuming that the semantic system was acti­ ample, by very brief exposure of visual stimuli or pre­ vated by the prime. sentation ofauditory stimuli in noise-show little or no The literature contains a range of cross-modality ef­ cross-modality repetition priming. Lexical decision, word fects of repetition that are broadly consistent with this fragment completion, and word-stem completion do show view. Experimenters who have used measures ofidenti­ some facilitation from cross-modality primes. This pat­ fication accuracy combined with degraded stimulus pre­ tern ofresults is consistent with the view that a semantic sentation (auditory presentation in noise or brief expo­ processing component to the test task is necessary for sures ofvisual stimuli) have found little or no transfer of cross-modality priming to occur. Note that none of the repetition effects across modality. Morton (1979) re­ studies cited have shown equivalent effects ofrepetition ported that auditory presentation of a word does not prime priming from cross-modality and within-modality primes. later visual recognition, but he did find significant prim­ Therefore, our prediction that cross-modality priming of ing of identification of auditory words presented in a name familiarity decisions would be equivalent to within­ background ofnoise from visual presentation ofthe word. modality priming stands against a considerable body of However, there was less facilitation from visually pre­ empirical evidence from word recognition. sented words than from auditory presentation. Ellis (1982) Cross-modality and within-modality repetition prim­ found that identification accuracy of auditory words pre­ ing effects in word recognition and name recognition were sented in noise was facilitated by a prior semantic clas­ compared in Experiment 2. The experimental design in­ sification of auditory words but found no facilitation if corporated three features to make the comparison between the prime word was presented visually. Clarke and Mor­ word recognition and name recognition as close as pos­ ton (1983) found very little transfer from hearing a word sible. First, the name familiarity decision task was selected in the prime phase to subsequent visual identification. to be analogous to the lexical decision task (cf. Bruce's, Weldon (1991) found significant priming of identifica­ 1983, comparison between face familiarity decisions and tion of a briefly exposed visual word from hearing the lexical decisions). Second, almost all ofthe surnames used word, but the degree offacilitation was significantly less in the name familiarity decision task were also English than that observed if subjects read the word during the words that were employed as items in the lexical decision prime phase. Jacoby and Dallas (1981; Experiment 6) task. Therefore, the data were derived from essentially found significant facilitation ofaccuracy ofvisual iden- the same items serving as words or as surnames. Third, 748 VALENTINE, HOLLIS, AND MOORE

all aspects of the design were as similar as possible be­ the primed and unprimed conditions was counterbalanced across sub­ tween the two tasks (e.g., number of stimuli, proportion jects for each combination ofprime phase modality and task. ofrepeated items, etc.). All subjects assigned to a specific task took part in an identical test phase. They made either familiarity decisions to names (first and surnames) or lexical decisions to words, presented on a PC screen. Method Half of the items required a positive response (famous names or Subjects. Sixty-four volunteers took part in the experiment. words) and halfrequired a negative response (unfamiliar names or Stimuli. The experimental stimuli for the name familiarity deci­ nonwords). The dependent variables were the mean latency of cor­ sion task consisted of names of celebrities whose surnames were rect responses to critical positive items and the accuracy ofresponses English words. (One ofthe names used required a change ofspelling to these items presented during the test phase. Woolf-Wolf). Two sets of 15 critical items were constructed. Names Procedure. The following details applied to all tasks (four prime of35 other celebrities and 80 unfamiliar names were selected. The task/modality combinations and the test tasks). Each task com­ name stimuli included were either the surname of a celebrity or a menced with 10 practice items. With the exception ofthe 15 primed surname that occurred in a database of surnames derived from the items, no other items were repeated between prime and test tasks ex~~r­ telephone directory (Moore & Valentine, 1993). One ofthe (including practice items). imenters selected celebrities names judged to be the most familiar In all tasks involving visual presentation, the following details to students (21 TV personalities, 20 film stars, 6 politicians, 4 applied. Each trial consisted ofa 250-msec tone 500 msec prior to sports personalities, 13 pop stars, and I author). Stimuli for the lex­ presentation ofthe stimulus. The subject's response terminated dis­ ical decision task consisted oftwo sets of 15 critical items (the words play ofthe stimulus. Each subject saw a different random order of forming the surnames ofthe critical stimuli for the name familiar­ stimuli. ity decision task), and 35 other English words, and 80 pronounce­ For the prime tasks that used auditory presentation, the following able nonwords (formed by altering one or two letters in the word details applied. Four different orders of stimuli were constructed. stimuli). All ofthe words occurred as surnames in the database. In Sequence I was in random order; Sequence 2 consisted ofthe sec­ addition, different stimuli were selected for 10 practice trials for ond half of Sequence 1 followed by the first half (split-half); Se­ each task in both the prime and test phases. Halfthe practice items quences 3 and 4 were Sequences I and 2, respectively, presented in were words or famous names and halfwere nonwords or unfamil­ reverse order. Four subjects saw the stimuli in each order. iar names. All ofthe stimuli used for the experimental trials are listed The procedures for the name familiarity decision prime task and in Appendix B. the test task were identical. In each trial, a full name was presented. Apparatus. In the tasks that required visual presentation, the The subjects were instructed to decide whether each name was fa­ stimuli were presented on a PC screen. The subjects' responses were miliar to them or not. They made their responses by pressing a logged by using keypresses on the keyboard. The experiment was pro­ "yes" or "no" key on the keyboard (or a hand-held response box for grammed using Micro Experimental Laboratory software (Schnei­ the auditory presentation condition). Subjects were instructed to re­ der, 1988). RT was recorded with millisecond accuracy. For the au­ spond as quickly and as accurately as possible. Names of40 celebri­ ditory presentation of the prime tasks, stimuli were presented via ties and 40 unfamiliar names were presented in both the name fa­ headphones from a cassette tape recorder. The subject made a re­ miliarity decision prime task and the test task. sponse by pressing one oftwo buttons on a hand-held response box. The procedures for the lexical decision prime task and the test An LED indicator showed which button had been pressed so that task were identical. The subjects were instructed to decide whether accuracy ofresponse could be recorded manually. or not each stimulus was an English word. They made their re­ Design. The experiment consisted oftwo phases, a prime phase sponses by pressing a "yes" or "no" key on the keyboard (or hand­ and a test phase. All subjects carried out the same task during the held response box for the auditory presentation condition). Subjects prime phase and the test phase (either name familiarity decision or were instructed to respond as quickly and as accurately as possible. lexical decision). The test task was presented visually to all sub­ Forty words and 40 non words were presented in both the lexical de­ jects. The experiment had a mixed design with three factors-prime cision prime task and the test task. task modality (visual vs. auditory), the task carried out (name fa­ miliarity vs. lexical decision), and priming (primed vs. unprimed items). Each subject took part in one of a combination of prime Results phase modality (auditory or visual) and task. Each combination was Responses to the 15 critical primed and unprimed items carried out by 16 subjects. Therefore, prime task modality and task made during the test phase were subjected to analysis. A were between-subjects factors. The effect ofpriming was a within­ response to a primed item was included in the analyses subjects factor. There were two sets of 15 critical items. One set was only ifthe correct response was given in both the prime included in both the prime and the test phases. Responses to these items formed the data from primed items. The other set of 15 criti­ phase and the test phase. Errors (in the prime and/or test cal items appeared only in the test phase. Responses to these items phase) were made to 7.1% ofstimuli. The accuracy ofre­ formed the data from unprimed items. The assignment of items to sponses is given in Table 2 as a function ofprime modal-

Table 2 Mean Number of Errors Per Subject in Experiment 2 (Maximum = 15) as a Function ofTask, Prime Modality, and Prime Condition Name Familiarity Decision Lexical Decision Prime Auditory Visual Auditory Visual Mean Modality M % SD % M % SD % M % SD % M % SD % M % SD % Primed 1.75 11.67 2.05 13.67 1.44 9.60 1.86 12.40 1.31 8.73 1.66 11.07 0.81 5.40 1.51 10.07 1.33 8.87 1.77 11.80 Unprimed 0.53 3.53 0.89 5.93 1.44 9.60 1.36 9.07 0.75 5.00 0.77 5.13 0.56 3.73 0.89 5.93 0.83 5.53 1.05 7.00 Mean 1.16 7.73 1.67 11.13 1.44 9.60 1.61 10.73 1.03 6.87 1.31 8.73 0.69 4.60 1.23 8.20 Note-Error rates for primed stimuli include trials on which an error was made in either the prime phase or the test phase. PROCESSING PEOPLE'S NAMES 749 ity, task, and priming condition. As in Experiment 1, the tween RTs to unprimed and primed items is plotted. The higher error rate to primed items than to unprimed items error bars indicate the appropriate 95% confidence inter­ occurred because a correct response had to be made on vals from the subjects and items analyses reported below. two occasions (prime and test phase) for the response to The data illustrated in panel A were subjected to a 2 X 2 be counted as correct, whereas unprimed items were pre­ X 2 slit-plot ANOVAwith repeated measures on the prim­ sented in the test phase only. No further analysis of ac­ ing factor, taking subjects as the random factor (identified curacy data was carried out. below with the suffix I), and to an ANOVA with repeated Mean RTs of correct responses to critical items in the measures on priming and prime modality, taking items as test phase are plotted in Figure 3. In panel A, the mean for the random factor (identified below by the suffix 2). each experimental condition is plotted. The effect ofprim­ The main effect of task was significant [FI (1,60) == ing is illustrated in panel B, in which the difference be- 11.11, MSe == 61,592.24, P == .001; F2(1,58) == 87.73,

(A)

1000

900 ..... -e-Names - Visual Prime -o-Names - AUditory Prime u-Q) 800 1Il ~ .....-Words - Visual Prime g ...... Words - Auditory Prime I- 700 - ll:

600

500 Primed Unprimed

(B)

160 u til 140 E 120 j 100 .5 80 60 l-! ll: 40 I '6' 20 II E 0 i -20 c: 2. ·40 l- ll: Names · Names ­ Words · Words · Visual Auditory Visua l Auditory Prime Prime Prime Prime Stimu lu type and prime modality

Figure 3. Results of Experiment 2. In panel A, the mean reaction time (RT) of correct positive responses in the test phase is plotted as a function of the modality of the prime task and the type of stimulus in the prime and test phases. The "plus" error bars indicate the 95% confidence in­ terval for the between-subjects factor from the subjects analysis. (This confidence interval is ap­ plicable only to the effect of modality of the prime task and type ofstimulus.) The "minus" error bars indicate the 95% confidence interval for the within-items factors from the items analysis. (This confidence interval is applicable to all factors.) In panel B, the facilitation ofRT in the test phase due to repetition priming is plotted as the difference between RT to unprimed items and primed items. The "plus" error bars indicate the 95% confidence interval for the difference be­ tween means for the within-subjects factor of priming from the subjects analysis. The "minus" error bars indicate the same 95% confidence interval from the items analysis. Confidence inter­ vals have been calculated using the procedure described by Loftus and Masson (1994). 750 VALENTINE, HOLLIS, AND MOORE

MSe = 17,311.55, P < .001]. Mean RT for name famil­ served when the familiarity decision during the prime iarity decisions (805 msec) was slower than the mean RT phase was made to a visual name. The experimental de­ for lexical decisions (659 msec). The main effect of sign allowed a close comparison between name familiar­ priming was significant [F](1,60) = 24.38, MSe = ity decision and lexical decision because the surnames 6,032.97,p < .001; F2(l,58) = 22.48, MSe = 10,868.76, used in the familiarity decision task occurred as words in P < .001]. The mean RT to primed items (698 msec) was a lexical decision task. In this case, analysis of simple faster than the mean RT to unprimed items (766 msec). main effects showed that repetition priming was observed The main effect ofmodality was significant in the items when the priming stimulus was presented in the same analysis only [F2(l,58) = 5.28, MSe = 6,864.47,p < .05; modality as the test item (visually), but the effect of rep­ F] < 1]. This effect was modified by a significant inter­ etition did not reach statistical significance if the prime action between task and modality in the items analysis phase consisted of lexical decisions to auditory stimuli. [F2(l,58) = 9.99, MSe = 6,864.47, P < .005; F, < 1]. The results are not consistent with the transfer-appropriate Analysis of simple main effects showed a significant training hypothesis. This hypothesis would have predicted effect of prime modality in the lexical decision task maximum priming when the processing demands ofthe [F2(l,58) = 14.88, MSe = 6,864.47,p < .001] but not in prime and test tasks were most similar. According to this the name familiarity decision task (F2 < 1). Lexical de­ view, same-modality primes would have produced more cisions preceded by an auditory prime task were faster priming than different-modality primes for both lexical than lexical decisions preceded by a visual prime task. decisions and name familiarity decisions. Neither can the The effect was not reliable in the subjects analysis (in results be explained by the hypothesis ofperceptual flu­ which modality was a between-subjects factor). It has no ency (Jacoby & Dallas, 1981). Presentation ofa different clear theoretical interpretation and could be due to dif­ stimulus in the different-modality condition ofthe name ferences in the speed of responding between the differ­ familiarity decision task did not reduce the facilitation ent groups ofsubjects who took part in each combination due to repetition compared with a same-modality prime. ofprime modality and task. No other effects were statis­ Under these conditions, there is no mechanism for per­ tically significant. ceptual fluency to provide facilitation because a stimulus The hypothesis predicted a three-way interaction be­ with entirely different physical properties is presented in tween the effects of priming, prime modality, and task. the prime and test phases. The predicted interaction was explored further in separate It might be argued that exclusion ofprimed items that two-way ANOVAs for each task. Analyses ofthe name elicited errors in the prime phase removed items from the familiarity decision task showed no interaction between analysis that could potentially have produced the slower the effects ofpriming and prime modality (FI and F2 < 1). responses in the primed condition. However, examina­ Analyses ofthe lexical decision task showed a significant tion of Table 2 shows that this effect alone cannot account interaction in the items analysis only [F](1,30) = 2.40, for the pattern ofresults. The difference in the error rate MSe = 3,873.33, P = .13; F2(l,29) = 5.05, MSe = to primed and unprimed items was greatest in the name 2,863.96,p < .05].Analyses ofsimple main effects showed familiarity decision primed by auditory presentation (1.75 a significant effect of priming when the prime task and vs. 0.56 errors, respectively), and yet the effect ofpriming test task both used visual presentation [F](l,30) = 10.36, was equivalent to that observed when there was no differ­ MSe = 3,878.33, P < .005; F2(1,29) = 9.63, MSe = ence in the error rate to primed and unprimed items (name 8,131.21; P < .005]. When the prime task was presented in familiarity decision primed by visual presentation). Fur­ the auditory modality, there was no significant priming thermore, when lexical decisions were primed by auditory of lexical decisions [F](1,30) = 1.06, MSe = 3,873.33, presentation, the difference in error rate to primed and P = .31; F2(l,29) = 2.34, MSe = 5,155.01,p =.14]. unprimed items was the second highest observed in any The mean RTofcorrect responses to nonwords included ofthe experimental conditions (1.31 vs. 0.75), and yet this in the test task for subjects who carried out the lexical was the only condition in which no reliable effect of prim­ decision task was 848 msec (SD = 226 msec). The mean ing was observed. RT for correct responses to unfamiliar names included in the test task for subjects who carried out the name famil­ GENERAL DISCUSSION iarity decision task was 1,005 msec (SD = 266 msec). Valentine et al. (1996) proposed that a semantic lexicon Discussion is common to the production and recognition of names, Experiment 2 was designed to test the prediction, de­ including processing ofpeople's names. Twopredictions rived from the framework shown in Figure 1, that repeti­ follow from this organization that distinguish the frame­ tion priming of name familiarity decisions would cross work from previous models of face and name process­ stimulus modality. The results are very clear. Making a ing. First, it was predicted that production of a person's familiarity decision to a name heard during the prime name in response to seeing his/her face would prime a fa­ phase produced just as much facilitation ofa subsequent miliarity decision to his/her written name. Experiment I familiarity decision to a visually presented name as ob- supported this prediction. It was noted that, consistent PROCESSING PEOPLE'S NAMES 751 with the literature, the framework does not predict a sim­ tion priming from production to recognition and repeti­ ilar effect ofobject naming. Naming an object does not tion priming ofrecognition that is as great across modal­ prime recognition ofthe object name. In this way, the re­ ity as it is within modality. Since this empirical method lationship between production and recognition of peo­ can be used to determine whether processing is mediated ple's names is different from the relationship found for by a token marker, it can establish whether a particular object names. stimulus or stimulus class is a proper name. Therefore, we Second, a semantic lexicon that is common to recog­ can make the strong prediction that geographical names nition of written language and speech gives rise to the (cities, rivers, etc.) should show the same pattern ofre­ prediction that repetition priming offamiliarity decisions sults as that observed in the experiments reported here for to people's names will be no less when the prime and test people's names. Trade names would be a less clear case. stimuli are presented in different modalities than the ef­ In addition to the implications for proper name pro­ fect would be if they are presented in the same modality. cessing, the results reported here have important impli­ This prediction does not apply to word recognition: There cations for models of word recognition, speech perception, would be a greater effect ofrepetition priming oflexical speech production, and the relationships among these mod­ decisions when both the prime and the test stimuli are els. Our results provide empirical support for Roelofs's presented in the same modality than when they are pre­ (1992) model ofspeech production, which included a se­ sented in different modalities. Experiment 2 supported mantic lexicon common to word recognition and speech these predictions. Thus, the relationship between recog­ production. Models ofword recognition fail to distinguish nition of spoken and written forms ofpeople's names is a semantic lexicon from nonlexical semantic representa­ different from the relationship found for common names. tions, on the one hand, and from a phonological lexicon, The results show remarkably clear evidence that pro­ on the other. Previous authors have concluded that it is cessing of people's names is carried out by a cognitive not possible to say whether a single lexicon is used for architecture that has a significantly different organiza­ both speech perception and speech production on the tion from processing of common names. The aspect of basis of empirical evidence alone (Ellis & Young, 1988; processing people's names that makes it different is that Monsell, 1987; Shallice, 1988). However, incorporating recognition of a person's name (in speech or in writing) separate semantic and phonological lexicons into models and production of a person's name require access to a ofspeech perception, speech production, and word recog­ token marker in memory, labeled as a "person identity nition-which have a semantic lexicon common to input node" in the framework (as in models of face recogni­ and output processing-provides a promising means of tion). It is believed that the token marker distinguishes resolving theoretical difficulties and providing a single processing ofall classes ofproper names from common theoretical basis for processing models that have devel­ names (see Valentine et aI., 1996). oped largely in isolation. The exact definition of a proper name has proved prob­ lematic for psychologists and philosophers. For example, REFERENCES proper names are often thought of as denoting an individ­ ual entity. So are trade names (e.g., Volkswagen Golf) BASSILI, J. N., SMITH, M. c. & MACLEOD, C. M. (1989). Auditory and visual word-stemcompletion:Separatingdata-drivenand conceptually­ proper names? Intuitively, the answer may appear to be driven processes. Quarterly Journal ofExperimental Psychology, "yes," but the name Volkswagen Golf may have millions 41A,439-453. of referents. Some philosophers of language suggest that BLAXTON, T. A. (1989). Investigating dissociations among memory proper names are pure referring expressions that have no measures: Support for a transfer-appropriate processing framework. sense. However, some information can be conveyed by Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Learning. Memory, & Cogni­ tion, 15,657-668. people's names even if the referent (i.e., the person who BREDART, S., & VALENTINE, T. (1992). From Monroe to Moreau. An holds that name) is completely unfamiliar. For example, it analysis offace naming errors. Cognition, 45, 187-223. would be possible to guess that YokoOno is Japanese, or BREDART, S., VALENTINE, T., CALDER, A., & GASSI, L. (1995). An in­ that Margaret Thatcher is female even if these specific teractive activation model of face naming. Quarterly Journal ofEx­ perimental Psychology, 48A, 466-486. names had never been encountered before. In another do­ BRUCE, V.(1983). Recognizing faces. Philosophical Transactions ofthe main of proper names, one would expect London Bridgeto Royal Society ofLondon: Series B, 302, 423-436. referto a bridgeand BuckinghamPalaceto be a palace. One BRUCE, v., & YOUNG, A. (1986). Understanding face recognition. may not be assured of being correct in such judgments, British Journal ofPsychology , 77, 305-327. but there is a very high probability of being correct. BURTON, A. M., BRUCE, v.. & JOHNSTON, R. A. (1990). Understanding face recognition with an interactive activation model. British Journal Although the definition ofa proper name can be prob­ ofPsychology , 81, 361-380. lematic, the experiments reported here provide an em­ CLARKE, R., & MORTON, J. (1983). Cross modality facilitation in tachis­ pirical method for establishing whether a name is a proper toscopic word recognition. Quarterly Journal ofExperimental Psy­ name. The results that are characteristic of people's names chology, 35A, 79-96. DELL, G. S. (1986). A spreading activation theory of retrieval in sen­ are attributed to the role of a token marker in memory. tence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283-321. Therefore, if recognition and production of a specific ELLIS, A. W. (1982). Modality-specific repetition priming of auditory name is mediated by a token marker, it will show repeti- word recognition. Current Psychological Research, 2,123-128. 752 VALENTINE, HOLLIS, AND MOORE

ELLIS, A. W., & YOUNG, A. W. (1988). Human cognitive neuropsychol­ chology ofproper names: On the importance ofbeing Ernest. London: ogy. Hove, U.K.: Erlbaum. Routledge. GARRETT, M. F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In G. H. VITKOVITCH, M., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1991). Perseverant responding Bower (Ed.), The psychology oflearning and motivation (Vol. 9, in speeded naming to pictures: It's in the links. Journal ofExperimen­ pp. 133-175). New York: Academic Press. tal Psychology: Learning, Memory. & Cognition, 17, 664-680. GARRETT, M. F. (1980). Levels ofprocessing in sentence production. In WELDON, M. S. (1991). Mechanisms underlying priming on perceptual B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production: Vol. 1. Speech and talk tests. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & (pp. 177-220). London: Academic Press. Cognition, 17, 526-541. GRAF, P., SHIMAMURA, A. P., & SQUIRE, L. R. (1985). Priming across WINNICK, W. A., & DANIEL, S. A. (1970). Two kinds ofresponse prim­ modality and priming across category levels: Extending the domain ing in tachistoscopic recognition. Journal ofExperimental Psychol­ ofpreserved function in amnesia. Journal ofExperimental Psychol­ ogy, 84, 74-81. ogy: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 11,386-396. HAY, D. c., & YOUNG, A. W. (1982). The human face. In A. W. Ellis NOTE (Ed.), Normality and pathology in cognitive functions (pp. 173-202). London: Academic Press. I. Monsell (1987) did not consider the role ofa semantic lexicon that HUNT,R. R., & TOTH, J. P. (1990). Perceptual identification, fragment is separate from both nonlexical semantic representations and a phono­ completion, and free recall: Concepts and data. Journal ofExperimen­ logical lexicon. If it is assumed that Monsell's "conceptual/functional tal Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 282-290. attributes," which he described as representing semantic properties, JACOBY, L. L., & DALLAS, M. (1981). On the relationship between au­ syntactic class, and usage conventions, is equivalent to a semantic tobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal ofExperi­ lexicon, our model is a case of his Model 3. Monsell argued that the mental Psychology: General, 110,306-340. balance of the evidence favors this model. See Valentine et al. (1996, KiRSNER, K., MILECH, D., & STANDEN, P.(1983). Common and modality­ pp. 175-176) for further discussion. specific processes in the mental lexicon. Memory & Cognition, 11, 621-630. APPENDIX A KiRSNER, K., & SMITH, M. C. (1974). Modality effects in word identi­ Stimuli Used in Experiment 1 fication. Memory & Cognition, 2, 637-640. LEVELT, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Critical (Celebrity) Items Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. loFTUS, G. R., & MASSON, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in Set 1: Les Dawson, Jack Nicholson, Paul Hogan, Mel Gibson, within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1,476-490. Johnathon Ross, Jimmy Saville, Elizabeth Taylor, Peter Cush­ MONSELL, S. (1987). On the relation between lexical input and output ing, Rowen Atkinson, Marilyn Monroe, Bruce Forsyth, Woody pathways for speech. In A. Allport, D. Mackay, W.Prinz, & E. Scheerer Allen, Barbara Windsor, Esther Rantzen, Michael Aspel. (Ed.), Language perception and production: Relationships between Set 2: Michael Crawford, David Bellamy, Ben Elton, Char­ listening, speaking, reading and writing (pp. 273-311). London: Aca­ lie Chaplin, Ken Dodd, Michael Hesaltine, Meryl Streep, Clint demic Press. Eastwood, Clive Anderson, Jenny Agutter, Burt Reynolds, Sue MONSELL, S., MATTHEWS, G. H., & MILLER, D. C. (1992). Repetition Lawly, Joanna Lumley, Anthony Hopkins, Michael Palin. oflexicalization across languages: A further test ofthe locus ofprim­ ing. Quarterly Journal ofExperimental Psychology, 44A, 763-783. Prime Phase MOORE, v., & VALENTINE, T. (1993). Names count: An assessment of surnamefrequencies in North WestEngland (Unpublished database). Face familiarity decision condition: Stimuli included 40 MORTON, J. (1979). Facilitation in word recognition: Experiments caus­ unfamiliar faces, 15 celebrity faces from either Set 1 or Set 2 ing change in the logogen model. In P. A. Kolers, M. Wrolstad, & above (counterbalanced across subjects), and the following 25 H. Bouma (Ed.), Processing ofvisible language (pp. 259-268). New celebrities' faces: York: Plenum. ROEDIGER, H. L., III, & BLAXTON, 1. A. (1987). Effects of varying Ruby Wax, Judy Garland, Cilia Black, Bob Hope, James Hunt, Fred­ modality, surface features, and retention interval on priming in word­ die Mercury, Wayne Sleep, Jeffrey Archer, David Steel, Charles Dance, George Bush, Victoria Wood, Tony Hancock, Dave Allen, fragment completion. Memory & Cognition, 15,379-388. ROEDIGER, H. L., III, WELDON, M. S., & CHALLIS, B. A. (1989). Ex­ Bill Clinton, Michael Jackson, Tom Cruise, Paddy Ashdown, Boris plaining dissociations between implicit and explicit measures ofre­ Becker, Sean Connery, John McEnroe, Sue Pollard, Steve Me­ tention: A processing account. In H. L. Roediger III & F.I. M. Craik Queen, Jason Donovan, Eric Clapton. (Eds.), Varieties ofmemory and consciousness: Essays in honour of Face naming condition: Stimuli included 15 celebrity faces Endel Tulving(pp. 3-41). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. from either Set 1 or Set 2 (counterbalanced across subjects), the ROELOFS, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval 25 celebrities' faces included in the face familiarity decision in speaking. Cognition, 42, 107-142. SCARBOROUGH, D. L., GERARD, L., & CORTESE, C. (1979). Accessing condition, and the following 35 additional celebrities' faces: lexical memory: The transfer of word repetition effects across task Steve Cram, David Bowie, Phil Collins, Charles Bronson, Michael and modality. Memory & Cognition, 7, 3-12. Douglas, Arthur Scargill, Liza Minelli, Dennis Healey, Robert SCHNEIDER, W. (1988). Micro Experimental Laboratory. An integrated Maxwell, Bob Geldof, Robin Williams, Phillip Schofield, Michael system for IBM-PC compatibles. Behavior Research Methods, In­ Parkinson, Clive James, Cliff Richard, Geoff Boycott, Leslie struments, & Computers, 20, 206-217. Crowther, Gary Linaker, Sylvester Stallone, Roger Moore, Michelle SEIDENBERG, M. S. (1988). Cognitive neuropsychology and language: Pfeiffer, Derek Jameson, Jimmy Carter, River Phoenix, Cristopher The state ofthe art. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5, 403-426. Leigh, Richard Branson, Bill Beaumont, Dean Martin, John Cleese, SHALLICE, 1. (1988). From neuropsychology to mental structure. Cam­ Paul Daniels, Anna Ford, Dawn French, Aneka Rice, John Major, bridge: Cambridge University Press. Benny Hill. VALENTINE, 1., BREDART, S., LAWSON, R., & WARD, G. (1991). What's in a name? Access to information from people's names. European Name familiarity decision condition: The stimuli were the Journal ofCognitive Psychology, 3, 147-176. printed names of 15 celebrity faces from either Set 1 or Set 2 VALENTINE, 1., BRENNEN, 1., & BREDART, S. (1996). The cognitivepsy- (counterbalanced across subjects), the names ofthe 25 celebri- PROCESSING PEOPLE'S NAMES 753

ties included in the face familiarity decision condition, and the Also included were the 40 unfamiliar names included in the following 40 unfamiliar names: name familiarity decision task used in the prime phase of Exper­ iment I (listed in Appendix A). John Pilgrim, Tim Riddle, Keith Knight, Robert Twig, Mark Wise, Victoria Twill, Benny Proud, Peter Cash, Susan Shade, Denise Black, Sterling Monks, Jenny Raw, Tim Tring, Raquel Wander, Test Phase Brook Sear, Oliver Park, June Robe, Janet Simpler, Lee North, Greg­ Name familiarity decision: The stimuli consisted of the ory Yard,Tom Rudder, Virginia Short, Margaret Wilder, Clair Root, celebrity names included in Sets I and 2 and the following 10 Peter Rosewood, Freddie Plover, Dawn Slater, Virginia Younger, "filler" celebrity names: Lloyd Marsh, River Thresh, James Green, Amanda Edge, Peter Lord, June Player, Jeremy Stammer, Jodie Sell, John Price, Buddy Oliver Hardy, Wayne Sleep, Stephany Powers, Aneka Rice, Christo­ Peacock, Paul Longhorn, Jerry Brown. pher Dean, Juliet Mills, James Hunt, Russell Grant, Gracey Fields, Ann Diamond. Test Phase Also included were the 40 unfamiliar names listed below: All subjects took part in the same test phase. Stimuli were the Adam Amber, Jeffrey Bend, Roger Burrows, Simon Chard, Cilia printed names ofthe 30 celebrities included in Set I and Set 2 Flay, Betty Grey, Frank Hawk, George Joss, Julie Kitchen, Jimmy and the following 10 celebrities' names: Marshall, Pat Law, Peter Millhouse, Kettle, Noel Luck, Steve Mel­ Betty Boo, Frank Brough, Billy Idol, Judy Dench, Julia Mckenzie, lows, Kevin Gill, Tom Sly, Robin South, James Sower,Francis Tiller, Vera Lynn, Julie Walters, Virginia Wade, Dustin Hoffman, Frank Adam Stokes, Carrie Storey, Harrison Swan, Jodie Tack, Michael Sinatra. Long, Dawn Thrush, David Thriller, Steven Tribe, Clark Stoops, Judy Wright, Gary Street, Gerry Towered, Tony Mote, Nigel Muff, Also included were the following 40 unfamiliar names: Buddy Mutter, Bob Netting, Dennis Nice, Billy Oats, Jeremy Pagen, Oliver Cram. Adam Amberton, Jeffrey Bendet, Roger Burrows, Simon Chard, Cilla Flay,Betty Morrison, Frank Walker, George Joss, Julie Taylor, Jimmy Burton, Phil Lawson, Peter Millhouse, Tommy Forden, Noel Critical Items: Words Kanock, Steve Mellows, Kevin Gilbert, Tom Tuft, Robin Wilson, Set I: archer, black, burns, cooper, dean, faith, blessed, gar­ James Sower, Francis Tiller, Adam Plover, Carrie Storey, Harrison land, idol, reed, laurel, moss, castle, turner, wolf. Quin, Jodie Tiffin, Michael Mote, Dawn Kotch, David Lapwing, Set 2: bates, holly, hope, bush, crisp, fisher, fox, west, french, Steven Milton, Clark Stoops, Judy Wright, Gary Pleat, Jerry Topper, cook, irons, major, thatcher, carter, foster. Tony Mileson, Nigel Ratty, Buddy Mutter, Bob Netting, Dennis Royle, Billy Skimming, Jeremy Ping, Oliver Thompson. Prime Phase Lexical decision: The stimuli consisted of 15 words from APPENDIXB either Set 1 or Set 2 (counterbalanced across subjects) and the Stimuli Used in Experiment 2 following 25 "filler" words: banister, glitter, hatch, mills, rice, vicious, brown, wood, fish, hill, Critical Items: Names bridges, shields, young, mercury, wax, gable, peck, phoenix, day, Set 1: Jeffrey Archer, Cilla Black, George Burns, Tommy frost, cruise, hall, plant, rock, king. Cooper, James Dean, Adam Faith, Brian Blessed, Judy Garland, Billy Idol, Oliver Reed, Stan Laurel, Sterling Moss, Barbara Also included were the 40 nonwords listed below: Castle, Tina Turner, Virginia Woolf. polgrem, raddlo, knught, twag, wesh, twell, praud, cesh, shede, rebe, Set 2: Simon Bates, Buddy Holly, Bob Hope, George Bush, munks, bleck, riw, thrang, wender, seir, pirk, sempler, narth, yird, Quentin Crisp, Carrie Fisher, Samantha Fox, Mae West, Dawn ridder, shart, walder, roet, rosawood, pliver, sleter, yoenger, mirsh, French,PeterCook, Jeremy Irons,John Major, MargaretThatcher, thrish, grean, edga, lird, pleyer, stemmer, sail, prace, parcock, Jimmy Carter, Jody Foster. longhirn, brewn.

Prime Phase Test Phase Name familiarity decision: The stimuli consisted of 15 Lexical decision: The stimuli consisted of the words in­ celebrities' names from either Set I or Set 2 (counterbalanced cluded in Sets I and 2 and the following 10 "filler" words: across subjects) and the following 25 "filler" famous names: hardy, sleep, powers, rice, dean, mills, hunt, grant, fields, diamond. Roger Bannister, Gary Glitter, Tony Hatch, Hayley Mills, Tim Rice, Also included were the 40 nonwords listed below: Sid Vicious, Bobby Brown, Victoria Wood, Michael Fish, Benny Hill, Lloyd Bridges, Brook Shields, Paul Young, Freddie Mercury, ambar, bund, birrows, chird, floy, griy, howk, jiss, kotchen, boll, Ruby Wax, Clark Gable, Gregory Peck, River Phoenix, Robin Day, mallhuose, kattle, leek, mullows, gell, sude, seuth, suwer, tuller, David Frost, Tom Cruise, Jerry Hall, Robert Plant, Rock Hudson, stukes, stirkey, swen, teck, limg, thrish, thraller, trabe, stoaps, wraght, Johnathon King. streit, tawered, mete, meff, metter, natting, noce, oets, pegen, crim.

(Manuscript received May 20, 1996; revision accepted for publication May 12, 1997.)