Speech as the perception of affordances

Ecological Psychology

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 327-343

  Worgan, S F ^a   Moore, R K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78249278528     PISSN: 10407413     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10407413.2010.517125     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Asch, S. E. (1952). Social psychology. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall.
2. Blackburn, P. L. (2007). The code model of communication: A powerful metaphor in linguistic metatheory. Dallas, TX: SIL International.
3. Blakemore, S. J., & Decety, J. (2001). From the perception of action to the understandingof intention. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 561-567.
4. Cassell, J., Torres, O., & Prevost, S. (1998). Turn taking vs. discourse structure: How best to model multimodal conversation. In Y. Wilks (Ed.), Machine conversations (pp. 143-154). New York, NY: Kluwer.
5. Chemero, A. (2000). Anti-representationalism and the dynamical stance. Philosophy of Science, 67, 625-647.
6. Chemero, A. (2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15, 181-195.
7. Diehl, R. L., & Kluender, K. R. (1989). On the objects of speech perception. Ecological Psychology, 1,121-144.
8. Fowler, C. A. (1986). An event approach to the study of speech perception from a direct-realist perspective. Journal of Phonetics, 14, 3-28.
9. Fowler, C. A. (1996). Listeners do hear sounds, not tongues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99, 1730-1741.
10. Galantucci, B., Fowler, C., & Turvey, M. (2006). The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 361-377.
11. Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
12. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approachto visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. (Original work published 1979)
13. Good, J. (2007). The affordances for social psychologyof the ecological approach to social knowing. Theory & Psychology, 17, 265-295.
14. Gregory, S. W., Dagan, K., & Webster, S. (1997). Evaluating the relation of vocal accommodation in conversation partners' fundamental frequencies perceptions communication quality. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 21, 23-43.
15. Harvey, I., Husbands, P., & Cliff, D. (1994). Seeing the light: Artificial evolution, real vision. In D. Cliff (Ed.), From animals to animats 3 (pp. 392-401). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Haskins Laboratories. (2010). The science of the spoken and written word. Retrieved from http://www.haskins.yale.edu/CaseStatement/Haskinscase.pdf
17. International Phonetic Association. (1999). Handbook of the international phonetic association: A guide to the use of the international phonetic alphabet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18. Kluender, K. R., & Lotto, A. J. (1999). Virtues and perils of an empiricist approach to speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105(1), 503-511.
19. Kono, T. (2009). Social affordances and the possibility of ecological linguistics. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 43, 356-373.
20. Leudar, I., & Costall, A. (2004). On the persistence of the 'problem of other minds' in psychology. Theory & Psychology, 14, 601-621.
21. Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 74, 431-461.
22. Liberman, A. M., & Mattingly, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, 21(1), 1-36.
23. Liberman, A. M., & Mattingly, I. (1989). A specialization for speech perception. Science, 243(4890), 489-494.
24. Lindblom, B. (1983). Economy of speech gestures. In P. F. MacNeilage (Ed.), The production of speech (pp. 217-245). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
25. Lindblom, B. (1986). Phonetic universals in vowel systems. In J. Ohala & J. Jaeger (Eds.), Experimental phonology (pp. 13-44). New York, NY: Academic Press.
26. Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the h&h-theory. In W. Hardcastle & A. Marchal (Eds.), Speech production and speech modeling (pp. 403-439). New York, NY: Springer.
27. Moore, R. (2007). PRESENCE: A human-inspired architecture for speech-based human-machine interaction. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 56(9), 1176-1188.
28. Nearey, T. M. (1997). Speech perception as pattern recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101(6), 3241-3254.
29. Nittrouer, S. (2006). Children hear the forest. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120(4), 1799-1802.
30. Ohala, J. J. (1986). Against the direct realist view of speech perception. Journal of Phonetics, 14, 75-82.
31. Ohala, J. J. (1996). Speech perception is hearing sounds, not tongues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99(3), 1718-1725.
32. Parrill, F., & Kimbara, I. (2006). Seeing and hearing double: The influence of mimicry in speech and gesture on observers. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30(4), 157-166.
33. Perkins, M. (1983). Sensing the world. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
34. Port, R. F. (2007). How are words stored in memory? Beyond phones and phonemes. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 143-170.
35. Port, R. F., & Leary, A. P. (2005). Against formal phonology. Language, 81, 927-964.
36. Porter, R. J., Jr. (1986). Speech messages, modulations, and motions. Journal of Phonetics, 14, 83-88.
37. Remez, R. E., Rubin, P. E., Pisoni, D. B., & Carrell, T. D. (1981). Speech perception without traditional speech cues. Science, 212(4497), 947-949.
38. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27,169-192.
39. Sahin, E., Cakmak, M., Dogar, M. R., Ugur, E., & Ucoluk, G. (2007). To afford or not to afford: A new formalization of affordances toward affordance-based robot control. Adaptive Behavior, 15, 447-472.
40. Smith, J. M., & Harper, D. (2003). Animal signals. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
41. Steedman, M. (2002). Plans, affordances, and combinatory grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25,723-753.
42. Stevens, K. N. (2002). Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111(4), 1872-1891.
43. Stevens, K. N., & Blumstein, S. E. (1981). The search of invariant acoustic correlates of phonetic features. In P. D. Eimas & J. L. Miller (Eds.), Perspectives on the study of speech (pp. 1-38). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
44. Stoffregen, T. A. (2003). Affordances as properties of the animal environment system. Ecological Psychology, 15, 115-134.
45. Studdert-Kennedy, M., Liberman, A. M., Harris, K. S., & Cooper, F. S. (1970). Motor theory of speech perception: A reply to Lane's critical review. Psychological Review, 77, 234-239.
46. Turvey, M. T. (1992). Affordances and prospective control: An outline of the ontology. Ecological Psychology, 4, 173-187.
47. Van Gelder, T. (1995). What might cognition be if not computation? Journal of Philosophy, 91, 345-381.
48. Van Hof, F., Van der Kamp, J., & Savelsbergh, G. J. P. (2008). The relation between infants' perception of catchableness and the control of catching. Developmental Psychology, 44, 182-194.
49. Warren, W. H. (1984). Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 683-703.
50. Warren, W. H. (2006). The dynamics of perception and action. Psychological Review, 113, 358-389.
51. Withagen, R., & Chemero, A. (2009). Naturalizing perception. Theory and Psychology, 19, 364-389.
52. Withagen, R., & Van der Kamp, J. (2010). Towards a new ecological conception of perceptual information: Lessons from a developmentalsystems perspective. Human Movement Science, 29(1), 149-163.
53. Worgan, S. F., & Damper, R. I. (2009). Symbolism and enactivism: An experimental test of conflicting approaches to artificial intelligence. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 21(1), 1-18.