Tracking the time course of phonetic cue integration during spoken word recognition

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 15, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 1064-1071

  McMurray, Bob ^a   Clayards, Meghan A ^b   Tanenhaus, Michael K ^c   Aslin, Richard N ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHONETICS; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ATTENTION; CUES; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHONETICS; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 59049107789     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/PBR.15.6.1064     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Allen, J. S., & Miller, J. L. (1999). Effects of syllable-initial voicing and speaking rate on the temporal characteristics of monosyllabic words. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 2031-2039.
2. Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye move-ments: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory & Language, 38, 419-439.
3. Andruski, J. E., Blumstein, S. E., & Burton, M. (1994). The effect of subphonetic differences on lexical access. Cognition, 52, 163-187.
4. Crosswhite, K., Masharov, M., McDonough, J., & Tenenhaus, M. K. (2008). Phonetic cues to word length in the online processing of onset-embedded word pairs. Manuscript submitted for publication.
5. Dahan, D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2001). Time course of frequency effects in spoken-word recognition: Evidence from eye movements. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 317-367.
6. Fowler, C. A. (1984). Segmentation of coarticulated speech in perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 36, 359-368.
7. Gaskell, M. G., Quinlan, P. T., Tamminen, J., & Cleland, A. A. (2008). The nature of phoneme representation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 282-302.
8. Gow, D. W., Jr. (2003). Feature parsing: Feature cue mapping in spoken word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 575-590.
9. Kessinger, R. H., & Blumstein, S. E. (1998). Effects of speaking rate on voice onset time and vowel production: Some implications for perception studies. Journal of Phonetics, 26, 117-128.
10. Kingston, J. (2005). Ears to categories: New 4arguments for autonomy. In S. Frota, M. Vigario, & M. J. Freitas (Eds.), Prosodies: With special reference to Iberian language (pp. 177-222). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
11. Klatt, D. (1980). Software for a cascade/parallel synthesizer. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 971-995.
12. Magnuson, J. S., Dixon, J. A., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2007). The dynamics of lexical competition during spoken word recognition. Cognitive Science, 31, 133-156.
13. McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86.
14. McMurray, B. (2008). KlattWorks: A (somewhat) new systematic approach to formant-based speech synthesis for empirical research. Manuscript in preparation.
15. McMurray, B., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2002). Gradient effects of within-category phonetic variation on lexical access. Cognition, 86, B33-B42.
16. McMurray, B., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (in press). Within-category VOT affects recovery from "lexical" garden paths: Evidence against phoneme-level inhibition. Journal of Memory & Language.
17. Miller, J. L., & Dexter, E. R. (1988). Effects of speaking rate and lexical status on phonetic perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 14, 369-378.
18. Miller, J. L., & Liberman, A. M. (1979). Some effects of later-occurring information on the perception of stop consonant and semivowel. Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 457-465.
19. Miller, J. L., & Volaitis, L. E. (1989). Effect of speaking rate on the perceptual structure of a phonetic category. Perception & Psychophysics, 46, 505-512.
20. Miller, J. L., & Wayland, S. C. (1993). Limits on the limitations of context-conditioned effects in the perception of [b] and [w]. Perception & Psychophysics, 54, 205-210.
21. Miller, J. O., Patterson, T., & Ulrich, R. (1998). Jackknife-based method for measuring LRP onset latency differences. Psychophysiology, 35, 99-115.
22. Oden, G. C., & Massaro, D. W. (1978). Integration of featural information in speech perception. Psychological Review, 85, 172-191.
23. Repp, B. H. (1982). Phonetic trading relations and context effects: New experimental evidence for a speech mode of perception. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 81-110.
24. Salverda, A. P., Dahan, D., & McQueen, J. M. (2003). The role of prosodic boundaries in the resolution of lexical embedding in speech comprehension. Cognition, 90, 51-89.
25. Shao, J., & Tu, D. (1995). The jackknife and bootstrap. New York: Springer.
26. Shinn, P. C., Blumstein, S. E., & Jongman, A. (1985). Limitations of context conditioned effects in the perception of [b] and [w]. Perception & Psychophysics, 38, 397-407.
27. Summerfield, Q. (1981). Articulatory rate and perceptual constancy in phonetic perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 7, 1074-1095.
28. Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632-1634.
29. Wayland, S. C., Miller, J. L., & Volaitis, L. E. (1994). The influence of sentential speaking rate on the internal structure of phonetic categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 2694-2701.