The modulation of lexical competition by segment duration

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 13, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 966-971

  Shatzman, Keren B ^a,b   Mcqueen, James M ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248194917     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03213910     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. BECKMAN, M. E., & PIERREHUMBERT, J. B. (1986). International structure in Japanese and English. In C. Ewen & J. Anderson (Eds.), Phonology yearbook (Vol. 3, pp. 255-309). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. CHO, T., MCQUEEN, J. M., & Cox, E. A. (in press). Prosodically driven phonetic detail in speech processing: The case of domain-initial strengthening in English. Journal of Phonetics.
3. CHRISTOPHE, A., PEPERKAMP, S., PALLIER, C., BLOCK, E., & MEHLER, J. (2004). Phonological phrase boundaries constrain lexical access: I. Adult data. Journal of Memory & Language, 51, 523-547.
4. DAVIS, M. H., MARSLEN-WILSON, W. D., & GASKELL, M. G. (2002). Leading up the lexical garden path: Segmentation and ambiguity in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 218-244.
5. FOUGERON, C. (2001). Articulatory properties of initial segments in several prosodie constituents in French. Journal of Phonetics, 29, 109-135.
6. FOUGERON, C., & KEATING, P. A. (1997). Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodie domains. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 3728-3740.
7. GOW, D. W., & GORDON, P. C. (1995). Lexical and prelexical influences on word segmentation: Evidence from priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 344-359.
8. KEMPS, R. J. J. K. (2004). Morphology in auditory lexical processing: Sensitivity to fine phonetic detail and insensitivity to suffix reduction. Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen (MPI Series in Psycholinguistics, Vol. 28). Wageningen: Ponsen & Looijen.
9. KLATT, D. (1974). Duration of [s] in English words. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 17, 51-63.
10. MCQUEEN, J. M. (2005). Speech perception. In K. Lamberts & R. Goldstone (Eds.), Tlie handbook of cognition (pp. 255-275). London: Sage.
11. NESPOR, M., & VOGEL, I. (1986). Prosodie phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
12. OLLER, D. K. (1973). Effect of position in utterance on speech segment duration in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54, 1235-1247.
13. QUENÉ, H. (1992). Durational cues for word segmentation in Dutch. Journal of Phonetics, 20, 331-350.
14. SALVERDA, A. P. (2005). Prosodically-conditioned detail in the recognition of spoken words. Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen (MPI Series in Psycholinguistics, Vol. 33). Wageningen: Ponsen & Looijen.
15. SALVERDA, A. P., DAHAN, D., & MCQUEEN, J. M. (2003). The role of prosodie boundaries in the resolution of lexical embedding in speech comprehension. Cognition, 90, 51-89.
16. SASLOW, M. G. (1967). Latency for saccadic eye movement. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 57, 1030-1033.
17. SHATTUCK-HUFNAGEL, S., & TURK, A. E. (1996). A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 193-247.
18. SHATZMAN, K. B. (2004). Segmenting ambiguous phrases using phoneme duration. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 329-332). Seoul: Sunjin Printing.
19. SHATZMAN, K. B., & MCQUEEN, J. M. (2006). Segment duration as a cue to word boundaries in spoken-word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 1-16.
20. SPTNELLI, E., MCQUEEN, J. M., & CUTLER, A. (2003). Processing resyllabified words in French. Journal of Memory & Language, 48, 233-254.
21. TURK, A. E., & SHATTUCK-HUFNAGEL, S. (2000). Word-boundary-related duration patterns in English. Journal of Phonetics, 28, 397-440.
22. UMEDA, N. (1977). Consonant duration in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61, 846-858.