The spread of the phonological neighborhood influences spoken word recognition

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 166-175

  Vitevitch, Michael S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MENTAL FUNCTION; MENTAL TASK; PHONEME; SPEECH; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 34247603902     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03195952     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. ALLOPENNA, P. D., MAGNUSON, J. S., & TANENHAUS, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory & Language, 38, 419-439.
2. ANDREWS, S. (1997). The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: Resolving neighborhood conflicts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 439-461.
3. AUER, E. T., JR., & LUCE, P. A. (2005). Probabilistic phonotactics in spoken word recognition. In D. B. Pisoni & R. E. Remez (Eds.), The handbook of speech perception (pp. 610-630). Oxford: Blackwell.
4. BÖLTE, J., & UHE, M. (2004). When is all understood and done? The psychological reality of the recognition point. Brain & Language, 88, 133-147.
5. BOND, Z. S. (1999). Slips of the ear: Errors in the perception of casual conversation. San Diego: Academic Press.
6. COHEN, J. (1976). Random means random. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 15, 261-262.
7. COHEN, J., MACWHINNEY, B., FLATT, M., & PROVOST, J. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 25, 257-271.
8. COLTHEART, M., DAVELAAR, E., JONASSON, J. T., & BESNER, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 535-556). New York: Academic Press.
9. DAVIS, C. J. (2005). N-Watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 65-70.
10. GROSJEAN, F. (1980). Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm. Perception & Psychophysics, 28, 267-283.
11. GROSJEAN, F. (1996). Gating. Language & Cognitive Processes, 11, 597-604.
12. HINO, Y., & LUPKER, S. J. (2000). Effects of word frequency and spelling-to-sound regularity in naming with and without preceding lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 166-183.
13. JOHNSON, N. F., & PUGH, K. R. (1994). A cohort model of visual word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 26, 240-346.
14. KEPPEL, G. (1976). Words as random variables. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 15, 263-265.
15. KUČERA, H., & FRANCIS, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
16. 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 & Verbal Behavior, 12, 119-131.
17. LEWANDOWSKY, S. (1993). The rewards and hazards of computer simulations. Psychological Science, 4, 236-243.
18. LUCE, P. A. (1986). A computational analysis of uniqueness points in auditory word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 39, 155-158.
19. LUCE, P. A., GOLDINGER, S. D., AUER, E. T., JR., & VITEVITCH, M. S. (2000). Phonetic priming, neighborhood activation, and PARSYN. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 615-625.
20. LUCE, P. A., & PISONI, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear & Hearing, 19, 1-36.
21. MARSLEN-WILSON, W. D., & WELSH, A. (1978). Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 29-63.
22. MCCLELLAND, J. L., & ELMAN, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86.
23. NORRIS, D. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52, 189-234.
24. NORRIS, D., MCQUEEN, J. M., & CUTLER, A. (2000). Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 23, 299-370.
25. NUSBAUM, H. C., PISONI, D. B., & DAVIS, C. K. (1984). Sizing up the Hoosier mental lexicon: Measuring the familiarity of 20,000 words (Research on Speech Perception, Progress Report No. 10). Bloomington: Indiana University, Psychology Department, Speech Research Laboratory.
26. PUGH, K. R., REXER, K., PETER, M., & KATZ, L. (1994). Neighborhood effects in visual word recognition: Effects of letter delay and nonword context difficulty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 639-648.
27. RAAIJMAKERS, J. G. W. (2003). A further look at the "language-as-fixed-effect fallacy." Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 141-151.
28. RAAIJMAKERS, J. G. W., SCHRIJNEMAKERS, J. M. C., & GREMMEN, F. (1999). How to deal with "The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy": Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory & Language, 41, 416-426.
29. RADEAU, M., & MORAIS, J. (1990). The uniqueness point effect in the shadowing of spoken words. Speech Communication, 9, 155-164.
30. RADEAU, M., MORAIS, J., MOUSTY, P., & BERTELSON, P. (2000). The effect of speaking rate on the role of the uniqueness point in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory & Language, 42, 406-422.
31. SMITH, J. E. K. (1976). The assuming-will-make-it-so fallacy. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 15, 262-263.
32. STORKEL, H. L. (2002). Restructuring of similarity neighbourhoods in the developing mental lexicon. Journal of Child Language, 29, 251-274.
33. STORKEL, H. L. (2004). Do children acquire dense neighborhoods? An investigation of similarity neighborhoods in lexical acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 201-221.
34. VITEVITCH, M. S. (1997). The neighborhood characteristics of malapropisms. Language & Speech, 40, 211-228.
35. VITEVITCH, M. S. (1998). All neighborhoods are not created equal: The phonological P-metric and spoken word recognition (Research on Speech Perception, Progress Report No. 22). Bloomington: Indiana University, Psychology Department, Speech Research Laboratory.
36. VITEVITCH, M. S. (2002a). Influence of onset density on spoken-word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 270-278.
37. VITEVITCH, M. S. (2002b). The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, & Cognition, 28, 735-747.
38. VITEVITCH, M. S. (2002c). Naturalistic and experimental analyses of word frequency and neighborhood density effects in slips of the ear. Language & Speech, 45, 407-434.
39. VITEVITCH, M. S., & LUCE, P. A. (1998). When words compete: Levels of processing in perception of spoken words. Psychological Science, 9, 325-329.
40. VITEVITCH, M. S., & LUCE, P. A. (1999). Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory & Language, 40, 374-408.
41. VITEVITCH, M. S., & LUCE, P. A. (2004). A Web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 481-487.
42. VITEVITCH, M. S., & LUCE, P. A. (2005). Increases in phonotactic probability facilitate spoken nonword repetition. Journal of Memory & Language, 52, 193-204.
43. VITEVITCH, M. S., & RODRÍGUEZ, E. (2005). Neighborhood density effects in spoken word recognition in Spanish. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 3, 64-73.
44. VITEVITCH, M. S., & SOMMERS, M. S. (2003). The facilitative influence of phonological similarity and neighborhood frequency in speech production in younger and older adults. Memory & Cognition, 31, 491-504.
45. WIKE, E. L., & CHURCH, J. D. (1976). Comments on Clark's "The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy." Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 15, 249-255.