Literature DB >> 14564833

The influence of sublexical and lexical representations on the processing of spoken words in English.

Michael S Vitevitch1.   

Abstract

Previous research suggests that sublexical and lexical representations are involved in spoken word recognition. The current experiment examined when sublexical and lexical representations are used in the processing of real words in English. The same set of words varying in phonotactic probability/neighbourhood density was presented in three different versions of a same-different matching task: (1) mostly real words as filler items, (2) an equal number of words and nonsense words as filler items and (3) mostly nonsense words as filler items. The results showed that lexical representations were used in version 1 of the same-different matching task to process the words, whereas sublexical representations were used in version 3 of the same-different matching task to process the words. Finally, in version 2 of the same-different matching task individual variation was observed in the form of distinct sublexical and lexical biases. Implications for the processing of spoken words are discussed.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14564833      PMCID: PMC2553702          DOI: 10.1080/0269920031000107541

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Linguist Phon        ISSN: 0269-9206            Impact factor:   1.346


  17 in total

1.  Merging information in speech recognition: feedback is never necessary.

Authors:  D Norris; J M McQueen; A Cutler
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 12.579

2.  Phonotactics, neighborhood activation, and lexical access for spoken words.

Authors:  M S Vitevitch; P A Luce; D B Pisoni; E T Auer
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  1999 Jun 1-15       Impact factor: 2.381

3.  Inhibitory processes and spoken word recognition in young and older adults: the interaction of lexical competition and semantic context.

Authors:  M S Sommers; S M Danielson
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  1999-09

4.  Naturalistic and experimental analyses of word frequency and neighborhood density effects in slips of the ear.

Authors:  Michael S Vitevitch
Journal:  Lang Speech       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 1.500

5.  Effects of Phonotactic Probabilities on the Processing of Spoken Words and Nonwords by Adults with Cochlear Implants Who Were Postlingually Deafened.

Authors:  Michael S Vitevitch; David B Pisoni; Karen Iler Kirk; Marcia Hay-McCutcheon; Stacey L Yount
Journal:  Volta Rev       Date:  2000

6.  Phonotactics and syllable stress: implications for the processing of spoken nonsense words.

Authors:  M S Vitevitch; P A Luce; J Charles-Luce; D Kemmerer
Journal:  Lang Speech       Date:  1997 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 1.500

7.  The TRACE model of speech perception.

Authors:  J L McClelland; J L Elman
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1986-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Effect of lexical status on phonetic categorization.

Authors:  R A Fox
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1984-08       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Phonotactic cues for segmentation of fluent speech by infants.

Authors:  S L Mattys; P W Jusczyk
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2001-02

10.  Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood activation model.

Authors:  P A Luce; D B Pisoni
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  20 in total

1.  A web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English.

Authors:  Michael S Vitevitch; Paul A Luce
Journal:  Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput       Date:  2004-08

2.  Phonotactic probability effects in children who stutter.

Authors:  Julie D Anderson; Courtney T Byrd
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  Effects of Attention on the Strength of Lexical Influences on Speech Perception: Behavioral Experiments and Computational Mechanisms.

Authors:  Daniel Mirman; James L McClelland; Lori L Holt; James S Magnuson
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2008-03

4.  Operationalization of Sign Language Phonological Similarity and its Effects on Lexical Access.

Authors:  Joshua T Williams; Adam Stone; Sharlene D Newman
Journal:  J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ       Date:  2017-07-01

5.  The Aging Neighborhood: Phonological Density in Naming.

Authors:  Jean K Gordon; Jake C Kurczek
Journal:  Lang Cogn Process       Date:  2014-01-01

6.  Complex network structure influences processing in long-term and short-term memory.

Authors:  Michael S Vitevitch; Kit Ying Chan; Steven Roodenrys
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2012-07-01       Impact factor: 3.059

7.  Spoken Language Activation Alters Subsequent Sign Language Activation in L2 Learners of American Sign Language.

Authors:  Joshua T Williams; Sharlene D Newman
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2017-02

8.  Reading proficiency influences the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation: Evidence from selective modulation of dorsal and ventral pathways of reading in bilinguals.

Authors:  Sagarika Bhattacharjee; Rajan Kashyap; Beth Ann O'Brien; Michael McCloskey; Kenichi Oishi; John E Desmond; Brenda Rapp; S H Annabel Chen
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2020-09-02       Impact factor: 2.381

9.  A short report: Word-level phonological and lexical characteristics interact to influence phoneme awareness.

Authors:  Tiffany P Hogan
Journal:  J Learn Disabil       Date:  2010-06-23

10.  The influence of the phonological neighborhood clustering coefficient on spoken word recognition.

Authors:  Kit Ying Chan; Michael S Vitevitch
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.332

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.