The label-feedback hypothesis (Lupyan, 2007, 2012) proposes that language modulates low- and high-level visual processing, such as priming visual object perception. Lupyan and Swingley (2012) found that repeating target names facilitates visual search, reducing response times and increasing accuracy. Hebert, Goldinger, and Walenchok (under review) used a modified design to replicate and extend this finding, and concluded that speaking modulates visual search via template integrity. The current series of experiments 1) replicated the work of Hebert et al. with audio stimuli played through headphones instead of self-directed speech, 2) examined the label feedback effect under conditions of varying object clarity, and 3) explored whether the relative prevalence of a target’s audio label might modulate the label feedback effect (as in the low prevalence effect; Wolfe, Horowitz, & Kenner, 2005). Paradigms utilized both traditional spatial visual search and repeated serial visual presentation (RSVP). Results substantiated those found in previous studies—hearing target names improved performance, even (and sometimes especially) when conditions were difficult or noisy, and the relative prevalence of a target’s audio label strongly impacted its perception. The mechanisms of the label feedback effect––namely, priming and target template integrity––are explored.

The label-feedback hypothesis (Lupyan, 2007) proposes that language can modulate low- and high-level visual processing, such as “priming” a visual object. Lupyan and Swingley (2012) found that repeating target names facilitates visual search, resulting in shorter reaction times (RTs) and higher accuracy. However, a design limitation made their results challenging to assess. This study evaluated whether self-directed speech influences target locating (i.e. attentional guidance) or target identification after location (i.e. decision time), testing whether the Label Feedback Effect reflects changes in visual attention or some other mechanism (e.g. template maintenance in working memory). Across three experiments, search RTs and eye movements were analyzed from four within-subject conditions. People spoke target names, nonwords, irrelevant (absent) object names, or irrelevant (present) object names. Speaking target names weakly facilitates visual search, but speaking different names strongly inhibits search. The most parsimonious account is that language affects target maintenance during search, rather than visual perception.