The Mental Lexicon Is Fully Specified: Evidence From Eye-Tracking

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 496-513

  Mitterer, Holger ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Eye tracking; Mental lexicon; Phonological underspecification; Spoken word recognition

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ELECTROOCULOGRAPHY; EYE MOVEMENT; HEARING; HUMAN; PHONETICS; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RECOGNITION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VISION;

AUDITORY PERCEPTION; ELECTROOCULOGRAPHY; EYE MOVEMENTS; HUMANS; PHONETICS; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SPEECH PERCEPTION; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 79954532699     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0020989     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Allopenna P.D., Magnuson J.S., Tanenhaus M.K. Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language 1998, 38:419-439.
2. Archangeli D. Aspects of underspecification theory. Phonology 1988, 6:183-207.
3. Arend L., Reeves A. Simultaneous color constancy. Journal of the Optical Society of America 1986, 3:1743-1751.
4. Baayen H.R. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R 2008, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
5. Blevins J. Another universal bites the dust: Northwest Mekeo lacks coronal phonemes. Oceanic Linguistics 2009, 48:264-273.
6. Bonte M., Mitterer H., Zellagui N., Poelmans N., Blomert L. Auditory cortical tuning to statistical regularities in phonology. Clinical Neurophysiology 2005, 116:2765.
7. Cairns C.E. Phonotactics, markedness and lexical representation. Phonology 1988, 6:209-236.
8. Clark H.H. The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1973, 12:335-359.
9. Coenen E., Zwitserlood P., Bölte J. Consequences of assimilation for word recognition and lexical representation. Language and Cognitive Processes 2001, 15:535-564.
10. Connine C.M., Blasko D.G., Titone D. Do the beginnings of spoken words have a special status in auditory word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 1993, 32:193-210.
11. Connine C.M., Ranbom L.J., Patterson D.J. Processing variant forms in spoken word recognition: The role of variant frequency. Perception & Psychophysics 2008, 70:403-411.
12. Darcy I., Kügler F. Phonological context effects for voicing and devoicing in French. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 2007, 1257-1260. Diderot, Saarbrücken, Germany. J. Trouvain, W.J. Barry (Eds.).
13. Darcy I., Peperkamp S., Dupoux E. Bilinguals play by the rules: Perceptual compensation for assimilation in late L2-learners. Laboratory phonology 2007, 9:411-442. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany. J. Cole, J. Hualde (Eds.).
14. Deacon D., Hewitt S., Yang C.-M., Masanouri N. Event-related potential indices of semantic priming using masked and unmasked words: Evidence that the N400 does not reflect a post-lexical. Cognitive Brain Research 2000, 9:137-146.
15. Ernestus M., Mak W.M. Distinctive phonological features differ in relevance for both spoken and written word recognition. Brain and Language 2004, 90:378-392.
16. Eulitz C., Lahiri A. Neurobiological evidence for abstract phonological representations in the mental lexicon during speech recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2004, 16:577-583.
17. Fowler C.A. Listeners do hear sounds, not tongues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1996, 99:1730-1741.
18. Friedrich C.K., Lahiri A., Eulitz C. Not every pseudoword disrupts word recognition: An ERP study. Behavioral and Brain Functions 2006, 2:26.
19. Friedrich C.K., Lahiri A., Eulitz C. Neurophysiological evidence for underspecified lexical representations: Asymmetries with word initial variations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2008, 34:1545-1559.
20. Gaskell M.G., Marslen-Wilson W.D. Phonological variation and inference in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1996, 22:144-158.
21. Gaskell M.G., Marslen-Wilson W.D. Mechanisms of phonological inference in speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1998, 24:380-396.
22. Gaskell M.G., Snoeren N.D. The impact of strong assimilation on the perception of connected speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2008, 34:1632-1647.
23. Geisler W.S., Kersten D. Illusions, perception and Bayes. Nature Neuroscience 2002, 5:508-510.
24. Goldinger S.D. Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review 1998, 105:251-279.
25. Gow D.W. Assimilation and anticipation in continuous spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 2001, 45:133-159.
26. Gow D.W. Does English coronal place assimilation create lexical ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2002, 28:163-179.
27. Gow D.W. Feature parsing: Feature cue mapping in spoken word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics 2003, 65:575-590.
28. Gow D.W., McMurray B. Word recognition and phonology: The case of English coronal place assimilation. Laboratory phonology 2007, 9:173-200. Mouton de Gruyter, New York, NY. J. Cole, J. Hualde (Eds.).
29. Hallett P.E. Eye movements. Handbook of perception and human performance 1986, 1-112. Wiley, New York, NY. K.R. Boff, L. Kaufman, J.P. Thomas (Eds.).
30. Huettig F., Altmann G.T.M. Word meaning and the control of eye fixation: Semantic competitor effects and the visual world paradigm. Cognition 2005, 96:B23-B32.
31. Jacobsen T., Schröger E., Winkler I., Horvath J. Familiarity affects the processing of task-irrelevant auditory deviants. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2005, 17:1704-1713.
32. Johnson K. Massive reduction in conversational American English. Spontaneous speech: Data and analysis. Proceedings of the 1st Session of the 10th International Symposium 2004, 29-54. National Institute for Japanese Language, Tokyo, Japan. K. Yoneyama, K. Maekawa (Eds.).
33. Kuhn T.S. The structure of scientific revolutions 1970, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 2nd ed.
34. Lahiri A., Marslen-Wilson W.D. The mental representation of lexical form: A phonological approach to the lexicon. Cognition 1991, 38:245-294.
35. Lahiri A., Reetz H. Underspecified recognition. Laboratory phonology 2002, 7:637-676. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany. C. Gussenhoven, N. Warner (Eds.).
36. Lahiri A., Reetz H. Distinctive features: Phonological underspecification in representation and processing. Journal of Phonetics 2010, 38:44-59.
37. Marslen-Wilson W.D., Nix A., Gaskell M.G. Phonological variation in lexical access: Abstractness, inference and English place assimilation. Language and Cognitive Processes 1995, 10:285-308.
38. McQueen J.M. Processing versus representation: Comments on Ohala and Ohala. Phonology and phonetic evidence. Papers in laboratory phonology IV 1995, 61-67. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. B. Cornell, A. Arvanti (Eds.).
39. McQueen J.M., Viebahn M. Tracking recognition of spoken words by tracking looks to printed words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2007, 60:661-671.
40. Mitterer, H. (2003). Understanding "gardem bench" Studies on the perception of assimilation word forms (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universiteit Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
41. Mitterer H., Blomert L. Coping with phonological assimilation in speech perception: Evidence for early compensation. Perception & Psychophysics 2003, 65:956-969.
42. Mitterer H., Csépe V., Blomert L. The role of perceptual integration in the perception of assimilated word forms. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2006, 59:1395-1424.
43. Mitterer H., Csépe V., Honbolygo F., Blomert L. The recognition of assimilated word forms does not depend on specific language experience. Cognitive Science 2006, 30:451-479.
44. Mitterer H., de Ruiter J.P. Recalibrating color categories using world knowledge. Psychological Science 2008, 19:629-634.
45. Mitterer H., Ernestus M. Listeners recover /t/s that speakers lenite: Evidence from /t/-lenition in Dutch. Journal of Phonetics 2006, 34:73-103.
46. Mitterer H., McQueen J.M. Processing reduced word-forms in speech perception using probabilistic knowledge about speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2009, 35:244-263.
47. Näätänen R. Attention and brain function 1992, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
48. Näätänen R. The mismatch negativity: A powerful tool for cognitive neuroscience. Ear & Hearing 1995, 16:6-18.
49. Näätänen R., Pakarinena S., Rinnea T., Takegata R. The mismatch negativity (MMN): Towards the optimal paradigm. Clinical Neurophysiology 2004, 115:140-144.
50. Näätänen R., Tervaniemi M., Sussman E., Paavilainen P., Winkler I. "Primitive intelligence" in the auditory cortex. Trends in Neuroscience 2001, 24:283-289.
51. Nolan F. The descriptive role of segments: Evidence from assimilation. Laboratory phonology 1992, 2:261-280. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. G. Docherty, D.R. Ladd (Eds.).
52. Norris D., McQueen J.M. Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review 2008, 115:357-395.
53. Ohala J.J., Ohala M. Speech perception and lexical representation: The role of vowel nasalization in Hindi and English. Phonology and phonetic evidence. Papers in laboratory phonology IV 1995, 41-60. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. B. Cornell, A. Arvanti (Eds.).
54. Paradis C., Prunet J.-F. Introduction: Asymmetry and visibility in consonant articulations. Phonetics and phonology: The special status of coronals internal and external evidence 1991, 2:1-28. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 2nd ed. C. Paradis, J.-F. Prunet (Eds.).
55. Pitt M.A. How are pronunciation variants of spoken words recognized? A test of generalization to newly learned words. Journal of Memory and Language 2009, 61:19-36.
56. Pitt M.A., Samuel A.G. Word length and lexical activation: Longer is better. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2006, 32:1120-1135.
57. Polka L., Bohn O.-S. Asymmetries in vowel perception. Speech Communication 2003, 41:221-231.
58. Repp B.H., Svastikula K. The perception of the [m]-[n] distinction in VC syllables. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1988, 83:237-247.
59. Scharinger M. Minimal representations of alternating vowels. Lingua 2009, 119:1414-1425.
60. Schröger E., Bendixen A., Trujillo-Barreto N.J., Roeber U. Processing of abstract rule violations in audition. Plos ONE 2007, 2:e1131.
61. Sumner M., Samuel A.G. Perception and representation of regular variation: The case of final /t/. Journal of Memory and Language 2005, 52:322-338.
62. Tavabi K., Elling L., Dobel C., Pantev C., Zwitserlood P. Effects of place of articulation changes on auditory neural activity: A magnetoencephalography study. Plos ONE 2009, 4:e4452.
63. Troost J.M., de Weert C.M.M. Naming vs. matching in color constancy. Perception & Psychophysics 1991, 50:591-602.
64. Tucker B.V., Warner N. Inhibition of processing due to reduction of the American English flap. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 2007, Pirot, Saarbrücken, Germany. J. Trouvain, W.J. Barry (Eds.).
65. van der Feest, S. V. H. (2007). Building a phonological lexicon (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
66. Van Herten M., Kolk H.H.J., Chwilla D.J. An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research 2005, 22:241-255.
67. Wheeldon L., Waksler R. Phonological underspecification and mapping mechanisms in the speech recognition lexicon. Brain and Language 2004, 90:401-412.
68. Yuille A., Kersten D. Vision as Bayesian inference: Analysis by synthesis?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2006, 10:301-308.