Literature DB >> 7587137

Lexical and sublexical feedback in auditory word recognition.

M A Pitt1, A G Samuel.   

Abstract

Currently, there are two qualitatively different model classes in the field of spoken language understanding. Autonomous models allow only bottom-up information flow, whereas interactive models allow higher level representations (e.g., lexical) to affect processing at lower levels (e.g., phonemic). Part 1 of the present study included a test of a prediction that differentiates the two model classes: Is phoneme monitoring faster for targets in real words than in pseudowords, even before the word could in principle be recognized? The results indicate that this lexical advantage does occur, in accord with the predictions of interactive models. In Part 2, speech compression and expansion were used to assess the sufficiency or necessity of bottom-up evidence and of processing time in accomplishing lexical access. The results of Parts 1 and 2 suggested that in addition to the lexical effects posited by current models, sublexical activation may also play an important role. Data are presented in Part 3 that support this interpretation. Collectively, the results in the current study support interactive models of lexical processing, but require additional sublexical processes as well.

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7587137     DOI: 10.1006/cogp.1995.1014

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


  13 in total

1.  Lexical, syntactic, and stress-pattern cues for speech segmentation.

Authors:  L D Sanders; H J Neville
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  Influence of onset density on spoken-word recognition.

Authors:  Michael S Vitevitch
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.332

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

Authors:  Michael S Vitevitch
Journal:  Clin Linguist Phon       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 1.346

4.  The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production.

Authors:  Michael S Vitevitch
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.051

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.  The Activation of Embedded Words in Spoken Word Recognition.

Authors:  Xujin Zhang; Arthur G Samuel
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2015 February-April       Impact factor: 3.059

7.  Handshape monitoring: Evaluation of linguistic and perceptual factors in the processing of American Sign Language.

Authors:  Michael Grosvald; Christian Lachaud; David Corina
Journal:  Lang Cogn Process       Date:  2011-11-18

8.  Dynamic encoding of speech sequence probability in human temporal cortex.

Authors:  Matthew K Leonard; Kristofer E Bouchard; Claire Tang; Edward F Chang
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2015-05-06       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Lexical mediation of phonotactic frequency effects on spoken word recognition: A Granger causality analysis of MRI-constrained MEG/EEG data.

Authors:  David W Gow; Bruna B Olson
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2015-07-01       Impact factor: 3.059

10.  Integration of pragmatic and phonetic cues in spoken word recognition.

Authors:  Hannah Rohde; Marc Ettlinger
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2012-01-16       Impact factor: 3.051

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.