Lexically guided retuning of letter perception

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 59, Issue 9, 2006, Pages 1505-1515

  Norris, Dennis ^a   Butterfield, Sally ^a   McQueen, James M ^b   Cutler, Anne ^b  

^a MRC COGNITION AND BRAIN SCIENCES UNIT   (United Kingdom)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REACTION TIME; READING; STUDENT; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; REACTION TIME; READING; STUDENTS; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS;

EID: 33746795154     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470210600739494     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Bowers, J. S. (1999). The visual categories of letters and wards reside outside any informationally encapsulated perceptual system. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 368-369.
2. Eimas, P. D., & Corbit, J. D. (1973). Selective adaptation of linguistic feature detectors. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 99-109.
3. Eisner, F., & McQueen, J. M. (2005). The specificity of perceptual learning in speech processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 224-238.
4. Eisner, F., & McQueen, J. M. (2006). Perceptual learning in speech: Stability over time. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 1950-1953.
5. Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation and Computers, 35, 116-124.
6. Kraljic, T., & Samuel, A. G. (2005). Perceptual learning for speech: Is there a return to normal? Cognitive Psychology, 51, 141-178.
7. Kraljic, T., & Samuel, A. G. (in press). Generalization in perceptual learning for speech. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.
8. Macromedia. (1996, October). Fontographer (4th ed.) [Computer program]. San Francisco: Author.
9. Massaro, D. W. (1979). Letter information and orthographic context in word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 595-609.
10. McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86.
11. McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of the basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375-407.
12. McQueen, J. M., Cutler, A., & Norrs, D. (2003, December). Perceptual learning in speech generalises over wards. Paper presented at the 9th Wintercongres of the Nederlandse Vereniging voor Psychonomie, Egmond aan Zee, The Netherlands.
13. McQueen, J. M., Cutler, A., & Norris, D. (in press). Phonological abstraction in the mental lexicon. Cognitive Science.
14. Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2003). Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 204-238.
15. Repp, B. H., & Liberman, A. L. (1987). Phonetic category boundaries are flexible. In S. Harnad (Ed.), Categorical perception (pp. 89-112). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16. Samuel, A. G. (1986). Red herring detectors and speech perception: In defense of selective adaptation. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 452-499.