When Theories of Speech Meet the Real World

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 111-122

  Liberman, Alvin M ^a  

^a HASKINS LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AWARENESS; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MEMORY; PHONETICS; PHYSIOLOGY; REVIEW; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

AWARENESS; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MEMORY; PHONETICS; SPEECH; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 0032020178     PISSN: 00906905     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1023289713883     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Berkeley, G. (1709). An essay towards a new theory of vision. Dublin, Ireland: Aaron Rhames.
2. Blachman, B. A. (1989). Phonological awareness and word recognition: Assessment and intervention. In A. G. Kamhi & H. W. Catts (Eds.), Reading disorder: A developmental language perspective. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
3. Crowder, R. G. (1983). The purity of auditory memory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, B302, 251-265. Diehl, R. L., & Kluender, K. R. (1989). On the categorization of speech sounds. In S. Harnad (Ed.), Categorical perception. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. For reviews, see Blachman, 1989; Routh and Fox, 1984.
4. Crowder, R. G. (1983). The purity of auditory memory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, B302, 251-265. Diehl, R. L., & Kluender, K. R. (1989). On the categorization of speech sounds. In S. Harnad (Ed.), Categorical perception. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. For reviews, see Blachman, 1989; Routh and Fox, 1984.
5. Fujisaki, H., & Kawashima, T. (1970). Some experiments on speech perception and a model for the perceptual mechanism. Annual Report of the Engineering Research Institute (Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo), 29, 207-214.
6. Geiger, G., & Lettvin, J. Y. (1988). Dyslexia and reading as examples of alternative visual strategies. In C. von Euler, I. Lundberg, & G. Lennerstrand (Eds.), Brain and reading (Wenner-Gren Symposium Series 54). New York: Macmillan.
7. Kraus, N., McGee, T. J., Carrell, T. D., Zecker, S., Nicel, T., & Koch, D. (1996). Auditory neurophysiologic responses and discrimination deficits in children with learning problems. Science, 273, 971-974.
8. Kuhl, P. K. (1981). Discrimination of speech by nonhuman animals: Basic auditory sensitivities conducive to the perception of speech-sound categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 70, 340-349.
9. Liberman, A. M. (1996). Speech: A special code. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Liberman, A. M., & Mattingly, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, 21, 1-36.
11. Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. D., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 74, 431-461.
12. Liberman, A. M., & Mattingly, I. G. (1989). A specialization for speech perception. Science, 243, 489-494.
13. Liberman, I. Y. (1973). Segmentation of the spoken word and reading acquisition. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 23, 65-77.
14. Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D. P., Fisher, F. W., & Carter, B. J. (1974). Explicit syllable and phoneme segmentation in the young child. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18, 201-212.
15. Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, A. M. (1989). The alphabetic principle and learning to read. In D. Shankweiler & I. Y. Liberman (Eds.), Phonology and reading disability: Solving the reading puzzle (pp. 1-33). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
16. Lindblom, B. (1991). The status of phonetic gestures. In I. G. Mattingly & M. Studdert-Kennedy (Eds.), Modularity and the motor theory of speech perception (pp. 7-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M. T. (1994a). Visual lexical access is initially phonological: 1. Evidence from associative priming by words, homophones, and pseudohomophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 107-128.
18. Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M. T. (1994b). Visual lexical access is initially phonological: 2. Evidence from phonological priming by homophones and pseudohomophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 331-353.
19. Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M. T. (1997). Phonological ambiguity impairs priming in naming and lexical decision. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 360-381.
20. Massaro, D. W. (1987). Psychophysics versus specialized processes in speech perception: An alternative perspective. In M. E. H. Schouten (Ed.), The psychophysics of speech perception (pp. 46-65). Boston: Nijhoff.
21. Mattingly, I. G. (1991). Reading and the biological function of linguistic representation. In I. G. Mattingly & M. Studdert-Kennedy (Eds.), Modularity and the motor theory of speech perception (pp. 339-346). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Mattingly, I. G., & Liberman, A. M. (1988). Specialized perceiving systems for speech and other biologically significant sounds. In G. M. Edelman, W. E. Galli, & W. M. Cowan (Eds.), Functions of the auditors system (pp. 775-793), New York: Wiley.
23. Mody, M., Studdert-Kennedy, M., & Brady, S. (1997). Speech perception deficits in poor readers: Auditory processing or phonological coding? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 64, 199-231.
24. Orton, S. T. (1937). Reading, writing and speech problems in children. New York: W. W. Norton.
25. Pavlides, G. T. (1985). Eye movement differences between dyslexies, normal, and retarded readers while sequentially fixating digits. American Journal of Opto and Physiological Optics, 62, 820-832.
26. Routh, P. K., & Fox, B. (1984). M . . . m is a little bit of May: Phonemes, reading and spelling. In N. D. Gadow & P. Bralen (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
27. Stein, J., Riddell, P., & Fowler, S. (1988). Disordered right hemisphere function in developmental dyslexia. In C. V. Euler, I. Lundberg, & G. Lennerstrand (Eds.), Brain and Reading. New York: Macmillan.
28. Stevens, K. N., & Blumstein, S. E. (1978). Invariant cues for place of articulation in stop consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64, 1358-1368.
29. Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1996). The origins of generativity. Paper presented at Conference on the Evolution of Human Language, Edinburgh.
30. Studdert-Kennedy, M., & Mody, M. (1995). Auditory temporal perception deficits in the reading-impaired: A critical review of the evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 508-514.
31. Sussman, H. (1989). Neural coding of relational invariance in speech perception: Human language analogs to the barn owl. Psychological Review, 96, 631-42.
32. Tallal, P., Miller, S., & Fitch, R. H. (1993). Neurobiological basis of speech: A case for the preeminence of temporal processing. In P. Tallal, A. M. Galaborda, R. R. Llinas, & C. von Euler (Eds.), Temporal information processing in the nervous system (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 82, pp. 27-47). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
33. Turvey, M. T. (1990). Coordination. American Psychologist, 45, 938-953.
34. Warren, R. M. (1993). Perception of acoustic sequences: Global integration versus temporal resolution. In S. McAdams & E. Bigand (Eds.), Thinking in sound. (pp. 775-793) Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.