The curious case of competition in Spanish speech production

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 760-770

  Vitevitch, Michael ^a   Stamer, Melissa ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPETITION; CONSONANT; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMAGE DISPLAY; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; NOMENCLATURE; NORMAL HUMAN; PHONETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPAIN; SPEECH ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL STIMULATION;

EID: 33746934106     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690960500287196     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Burke, D. M., MacKay, D. G., Worthley, J. S., & Wade, E. (1991). On the tip of the tongue: What causes word finding failures in young and older adults? Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 542-579.
2. Cohen, J., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for defining and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavior Research, Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 25, 257-271.
3. Cutler, A., Mehler, J., Norris, D., & Segui, J. (1983). A language-specific comprehension strategy. Nature, 304, 159-160.
4. Cutler, A., Mehler, J., Norris, D., & Segui, J. (1986). The syllable's differing role in the segmentation of French and English. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 385-400.
5. Cutler, A., & Norris, D. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 113-121.
6. Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283-321.
7. Gierut, J. A., Morrisette, M. L., & Champion, A. H. (1999). Lexical constraints in phonological acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 26, 261-294.
8. Gordon, J. K., & Dell, G. S. (2001). Phonological neighbourhood effects: Evidence from aphasia and connectionist modeling. Brain and Language, 79, 21-23.
9. Killeen, P. R. (2005). An alternative to null-hypothesis significance tests. Psychological Science, 16, 345-353.
10. Landauer, T. K., & Streeter, L. A. (1973). Structural differences between common and rare words: Failure of equivalence assumptions for theories of word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 119-131.
11. Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Brain and Behavioral Science, 22, 1-75.
12. Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighbourhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19, 1-36.
13. McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86.
14. Mehler, J., Dommergues, J. Y., Frauenfelder, U., & Segui, J. (1981). The syllable's role in speech segmentation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 298-305.
15. Mencken, H. L. (1921). The American language: An inquiry into the development of English in the United States, (2nd ed.). New York: A.A. Knopf.
16. Murphy, K. R., & Myors, B. (1998). Statistical power analysis: A simple and general model for traditional and modern hypothesis tests. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
17. Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2000). Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 299-370.
18. Oldfield, R. C., & Wingfield, A. (1965). Response latencies in naming objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17, 273-281.
19. O'Seaghdha, P. G., & Marin, J. W. (2000). Phonological competition and cooperation in formrelated priming: Sequential and nonsequential processes in word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 57-73.
20. Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 507-537.
21. Sebastián Gallés, N., Martí Antonín, M. A., Carreiras Vali∼na, M. F., & Cuetos Vega, F. (2000). Lexesp. Léxico informatizado del espa∼nol. CD-ROM. Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona.
22. Sevald, C. A., & Dell, G. S. (1994). The sequential cuing effect in speech production. Cognition, 53, 91-127.
23. Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174-215.
24. Storkel, H. L. (2004). Do children acquire dense neighbourhoods? An investigation of similarity neighbourhoods in lexical acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 201-221.
25. Vitevitch, M. S. (1997). The neighbourhood characteristics of malapropisms. Language and Speech, 40, 211-228.
26. Vitevitch, M. S. (2002a). Naturalistic and experimental analyses of word frequency and neighbourhood density effects in slips of the ear. Language and Speech, 45, 407-434.
27. Vitevitch, M. S. (2002b). The influence of phonological similarity neighbourhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 28, 735-747.
28. Vitevitch, M. S., Armbrüster, J., & Chu, S. (2004). Sublexical and lexical representations in speech production: Effects of phonotactic probability and onset density. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 30, 514-529.
29. Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1998). When words compete: Levels of processing in perception of spoken words. Psychological Science, 9, 325-329.
30. Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1999). Probabilistic phonotactics and spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 374-408.
31. Vitevitch, M. S., & Rodríguez, E. (2005). Neighbourhood density effects in spoken word recognition in Spanish. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 3, 64-73.
32. Vitevitch, M. S., & Sommers, M. S. (2003). The facilitative influence of phonological similarity and neighbourhood frequency in speech production in younger and older adults. Memory and Cognition, 31, 491-504.