Literature DB >> 28917133

Waiting for lexical access: Cochlear implants or severely degraded input lead listeners to process speech less incrementally.

Bob McMurray1, Ashley Farris-Trimble2, Hannah Rigler3.   

Abstract

Spoken language unfolds over time. Consequently, there are brief periods of ambiguity, when incomplete input can match many possible words. Typical listeners solve this problem by immediately activating multiple candidates which compete for recognition. In two experiments using the visual world paradigm, we examined real-time lexical competition in prelingually deaf cochlear implant (CI) users, and normal hearing (NH) adults listening to severely degraded speech. In Experiment 1, adolescent CI users and NH controls matched spoken words to arrays of pictures including pictures of the target word and phonological competitors. Eye-movements to each referent were monitored asa measure of how strongly that candidate was considered over time. Relative to NH controls, CI users showed a large delay in fixating any object, less competition from onset competitors (e.g., sandwich after hearing sandal), and increased competition from rhyme competitors (e.g., candle after hearing sandal). Experiment 2 observed the same pattern with NH listeners hearing highly degraded speech. These studies suggests that in contrast to all prior studies of word recognition in typical listeners, listeners recognizing words in severely degraded conditions can exhibit a substantively different pattern of dynamics, waiting to begin lexical access until substantial information has accumulated.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cochlear implants; Incremental processing; Lexical access; Speech perception; Spoken word recognition; Vocoded speech

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28917133      PMCID: PMC5612912          DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.08.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cognition        ISSN: 0010-0277


  72 in total

1.  Effects of vowel context on the recognition of initial and medial consonants by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Gail S Donaldson; Heather A Kreft
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 2.  Shortlist B: a Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition.

Authors:  Dennis Norris; James M McQueen
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  The time-course of speaking rate compensation: Effects of sentential rate and vowel length on voicing judgments.

Authors:  Joseph C Toscano; Bob McMurray
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.331

4.  Articulatory rate and perceptual constancy in phonetic perception.

Authors:  Q Summerfield
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1981-10       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Speech perception performance in prelingually deaf children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  W K Gstoettner; J Hamzavi; B Egelierler; W D Baumgartner
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 1.494

6.  Spoken word recognition in toddlers who use cochlear implants.

Authors:  Tina M Grieco-Calub; Jenny R Saffran; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  Individual differences in online spoken word recognition: Implications for SLI.

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Vicki M Samelson; Sung Hee Lee; J Bruce Tomblin
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Test-retest reliability of eye tracking in the visual world paradigm for the study of real-time spoken word recognition.

Authors:  Ashley Farris-Trimble; Bob McMurray
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 2.297

9.  Training alters the resolution of lexical interference: Evidence for plasticity of competition and inhibition.

Authors:  Efthymia C Kapnoula; Bob McMurray
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2016-01

10.  Word learning emerges from the interaction of online referent selection and slow associative learning.

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Jessica S Horst; Larissa K Samuelson
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 8.934

View more
  27 in total

1.  How Do You Deal With Uncertainty? Cochlear Implant Users Differ in the Dynamics of Lexical Processing of Noncanonical Inputs.

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Tyler P Ellis; Keith S Apfelbaum
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Waiting for lexical access: Cochlear implants or severely degraded input lead listeners to process speech less incrementally.

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Ashley Farris-Trimble; Hannah Rigler
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2017-09-14

3.  Time-Gated Word Recognition in Children: Effects of Auditory Access, Age, and Semantic Context.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Walker; David Kessler; Kelsey Klein; Meredith Spratford; Jacob J Oleson; Anne Welhaven; Ryan W McCreery
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-06-13       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  Lexical bias in word recognition by cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Steven P Gianakas; Matthew B Winn
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Interactions Between Item Set and Vocoding in Serial Recall.

Authors:  Adam K Bosen; Mary C Luckasen
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 6.  Eyes and ears: Using eye tracking and pupillometry to understand challenges to speech recognition.

Authors:  Kristin J Van Engen; Drew J McLaughlin
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-05-04       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Listeners can anticipate future segments before they identify the current one.

Authors:  Kayleen E Schreiber; Bob McMurray
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 2.199

8.  Making Sense of Sentences: Top-Down Processing of Speech by Adult Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Jessa Reed
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-07-22       Impact factor: 2.297

9.  Linear Mixed-Model Analysis to Examine Longitudinal Trajectories in Vocabulary Depth and Breadth in Children Who Are Hard of Hearing.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Walker; Alexandra Redfern; Jacob J Oleson
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-03-25       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  What Are You Waiting For? Real-Time Integration of Cues for Fricatives Suggests Encapsulated Auditory Memory.

Authors:  Marcus E Galle; Jamie Klein-Packard; Kayleen Schreiber; Bob McMurray
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2019-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.