It remains unclear whether all BVD-523 solubility dmso distractor types are associated with suppression as well as enhancement, whether suppressed/enhanced activation patterns are characteristic for each distractor type (i.e., distractor specific), and which underlying mechanisms are

responsible for the effects. Further insights into the relation between behavioral interference effects given in a certain distractor type, the neural interference effects, and Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical the underlying cognitive mechanisms are crucial for a reasonable interpretation of respective brain imaging results (see question marks in Fig. 1). Our previous interference fMRI experiment with auditory distractors (Abel et al. 2009a) revealed Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical that linguistic-processing stages could be segregated by comparing increased activations of target-related distractors, while hemodynamic responses in comparison to unrelated distractors remained distractor unspecific and were therefore rather neglected (see Table 1 and Fig. S1 for previous findings). “Distractor unspecific” refers to the finding that activated areas were not restricted to one distractor type only. At the same time, activations did not overlap for all distractor types either. In the present contribution, we reconsider the contrast of

related versus unrelated distractors. Thereby, we reexamine the suppression Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical results of Abel et al. (2009a) in detail (UNREL > REL) and additionally perform secondary data analyses (REL > UNREL, conjunction analyses), in order to test hypotheses on the mechanisms underlying interference effects (see new predictions in Table 1). Table 1 Cognitive and neural characteristics Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical of the four distractor conditions: recent findings and new predictions Behavioral interference effects have shown to be a good means of investigating psycholinguistic

stages. While the Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical facilitatory effects have been attributed to the beneficial activation of neighboring words, the inhibitory effects have been explained by the effortful need to resolve the extra activation of competing first neighbors. In the swinging lexical network model of Abdel Rahman and Melinger (2009), semantic distractors influence conceptual processing due to priming and lexical processing due to competition between lexical entries. We conclude that word priming and monitoring/control are decisive cognitive mechanisms underlying behavioral interference effects. Notably, associative facilitators may turn into inhibitors dependent on the context (Abdel Rahman and Melinger 2007; Sass et al. 2010). Contrary, categorical distractors may turn into facilitators when presented early (stimulus onset asynchrony [SOA] = –400 msec; Glaser and Düngelhoff 1984) or when subliminally processed (masked priming; Finkbeiner and Caramazza 2006). Thus, categorical distractors contain a facilitatory potential.