Processing of indexical information requires time: Evidence from change deafness

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 64, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 1484-1493

  Vitevitch, Michael S ^a   Donoso, Alexander ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

Change deafness; Indexical information; Lexical information

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; HEARING; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; METHODOLOGY; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHYSIOLOGY; RANDOMIZATION; REACTION TIME; STUDENT; UNIVERSITY;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; LINGUISTICS; RANDOM ALLOCATION; REACTION TIME; STUDENTS; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 79961057139     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2011.578749     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Abercrombie, D. (1967). Elements of general phonetics. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
2. Bix, L., Kosugi, W., Bello, N., Sundar, R., & Becker, M. (2010). The use of change detection as a method of objectively evaluating labels. Packaging Technology & Science, 23, 393-401.
3. Carpenter, G. A., & Grossberg, S. (2003). Adaptive resonance theory. In M. A. Arbib (Ed.), The handbook of brain theory and neural networks (2nd ed., pp. 87-90). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Eysenck, M. W. (1978). Levels of processing: A critique. British Journal of Psychology, 69, 157-169.
5. Gregg, M. K., & Samuel, A. G. (2008). Change deafness and the organizational properties of sounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 34, 974-991.
6. Grossberg, S. (1986). The adaptive self-organization of serial order in behaviour: Speech, language, and motor control. In E. C. Schwab & H. C. Nusbaum (Eds.), Pattern recognition by humans and machines: Vol. 1. Speech perception (pp. 187-294). New York, NY: Academic Press.
7. Lockhart, R. S., Craik, F.I.M. & Jacoby, L. L. (1976). Depth of processing, recognition, and recall. In J. Brown (Ed.), Recall and recognition. London, UK: Academic Press.
8. McLennan, C. T., & Luce, P. A. (2005). Examining the time course of indexical specificity effects in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(2), 306-321.
9. Mullennix, J. W., & Pisoni, D. B. (1990). Stimulus variability and processing dependencies in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 47(4), 379-390.
10. Pavani, F., & Turatto, M. (2008). Change perception in complex auditory scenes. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 619-629.
11. Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (1998). Failure to detect changes to people during a real-world interaction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 644-649.
12. Van Lancker, D. R., Cummings, J. L., Kreiman, J., & Dobkin, B. H. (1988). Phonagnosia: A dissociation between familiar and unfamiliar voices. Cortex, 24, 195-209.
13. Vitevitch, M. S. (2003). Change deafness: The inability to detect changes between two voices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(2), 333-342.
14. Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1999). Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory & Language, 40, 374-408.
15. 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, and Computers, 36, 481-487.
16. Vitevitch, M. S., Luce, P. A., Charles-Luce, J., & Kemmerer, D. (1997). Phonotactics and syllable stress: Implications for the processing of spoken nonsense words. Language & Speech, 40, 47-62.