Literature DB >> 2758786

Testing between the TRACE model and the fuzzy logical model of speech perception.

D W Massaro.   

Abstract

The TRACE model of speech perception (McClelland & Elman, 1986) is contrasted with a fuzzy logical model of perception (FLMP) (Oden & Massaro, 1978). The central question is how the models account for the influence of multiple sources of information on perceptual judgment. Although the two models can make somewhat similar predictions, the assumptions underlying the models are fundamentally different. The TRACE model is built around the concept of interactive activation, whereas the FLMP is structured in terms of the integration of independent sources of information. The models are tested against test results of an experiment involving the independent manipulation of bottom-up and top-down sources of information. Using a signal detection framework, sensitivity and bias measures of performance can be computed. The TRACE model predicts that top-down influences from the word level influence sensitivity at the phoneme level, whereas the FLMP does not. The empirical results of a study involving the influence of phonological context and segmental information on the perceptual recognition of a speech segment are best described without any assumed changes in sensitivity. To date, not only is a mechanism of interactive activation not necessary to describe speech perception, it is shown to be wrong when instantiated in the TRACE model.

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2758786     DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(89)90014-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Psychol        ISSN: 0010-0285            Impact factor:   3.468


  19 in total

Review 1.  Are there interactive processes in speech perception?

Authors:  James L McClelland; Daniel Mirman; Lori L Holt
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2006-07-13       Impact factor: 20.229

2.  More than meets the eye: context effects in word identification.

Authors:  M E Masson; R Borowsky
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1998-11

3.  Perceiving speech from inverted faces.

Authors:  D W Massaro; M M Cohen
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1996-10

4.  Cross-linguistic comparisons in the integration of visual and auditory speech.

Authors:  D W Massaro; M M Cohen; P M Smeele
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1995-01

5.  What information is necessary for speech categorization? Harnessing variability in the speech signal by integrating cues computed relative to expectations.

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Allard Jongman
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 8.934

6.  Sentential influences on acoustic-phonetic processing: A Granger causality analysis of multimodal imaging data.

Authors:  David W Gow; Bruna B Olson
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 2.331

7.  Categorical Encoding of Vowels in Primary Auditory Cortex.

Authors:  Deborah F Levy; Stephen M Wilson
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2020-03-21       Impact factor: 5.357

8.  What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?

Authors:  Gina R Kuperberg; T Florian Jaeger
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2015-11-13       Impact factor: 2.331

9.  Infant word recognition: Insights from TRACE simulations.

Authors:  Julien Mayor; Kim Plunkett
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 3.059

10.  Graded motor responses in the time course of categorizing atypical exemplars.

Authors:  Rick Dale; Caitlin Kehoe; Michael J Spivey
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2007-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.