Expectations from preceding prosody influence segmentation in online sentence processing

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 18, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1189-1196

  Brown, Meredith ^a   Salverda, Anne Pier ^a   Dilley, Laura C ^b   Tanenhaus, Michael K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Expectations; Lexical competition; Perceptual organization; Prosody; Spoken word recognition; Visual world paradigm

Indexed keywords

EID: 81355142071     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-011-0167-9     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2010). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5. 1. 25) [Computer program]. Retrieved 20 January, 2010, from www.praat.org.
2. Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1993). English speech rhythm: Form and function in everyday verbal interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
3. Crystal, D. (1969). Prosodic systems and intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Dainora, A. (2001). An empirically based probabilistic model of intonation in American English. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Chicago.
5. Dilley, L. C., Mattys, S. L., & Vinke, L. (2010). Potent prosody: Comparing the effects of distal prosody, proximal prosody, and semantic context on word segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 274-294. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2010. 06. 003.
6. Dilley, L. C., & McAuley, J. D. (2008). Distal prosodic context affects word segmentation and lexical processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 294-311. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2008. 06. 006.
7. Dilley, L., & Pitt, M. (2010). Altering context speech rate can cause words to appear or disappear. Psychological Science, 21, 1664-1670.
8. Fraundorf, S., & Watson, D. (2010). Who cares about prosody? Predicting individual differences in sensitivity to pitch accent in online reference resolution. Poster presented at Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing 2010, York, U. K.
9. Handel, S. (1989). Listening: An introduction to the perception of auditory events. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Holt, L. (2005). Temporally nonadjacent nonlinguistic sounds affect speech categorization. Psychological Science, 16, 305-312.
11. Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20, 137-194. doi: 10. 1016/S0364-0213(99)80005-6.
12. Kamide, Y. (2008). Anticipatory processes in sentence processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 647-670.
13. Lehiste, I. (1977). Isochrony reconsidered. Journal of Phonetics, 5, 253-263.
14. Lerdahl, F., & Jackendoff, R. (1983). A generative theory of tonal music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126-1177. doi: 10. 1016/j. cognition. 2007. 05. 006.
16. Matin, E., Shao, K., & Boff, K. (1993). Saccadic overhead: Information-processing time with and without saccades. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 372-380.
17. McAuley, J., Dilley, L., Rajarajan, P., & Bur, K. (2011). Effects of distal pitch and timing of speech and nonspeech precursors on word segmentation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129, 2683.
18. Mirman, D., Dixon, J. A., & Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 475-494. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2007. 11. 006.
19. Moulines, E., & Charpentier, F. (1990). Pitch-synchronous waveform processing techniques for text-to-speech synthesis using diphones. Speech Communication, 9, 453-467.
20. Patel, A. (2008). Music, language, and the brain. New York: Oxford University Press.
21. Pierrehumbert, J. (2000). Tonal elements and their alignment. In M. Horne (Ed.), Prosody: Theory and experiment. Studies presented to Gösta Bruce (pp. 11-36). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
22. Reinisch, E., Jesse, A., & McQueen, J. M. (2011). Speaking rate from proximal and distal contexts is used during word segmentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 978-996.
23. 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. doi: 10. 1016/S0010-0277(03)00139-2.
24. Salverda, A. P., Dahan, D., Tanenhaus, M. K., Crosswhite, K., Masharov, M., & McDonough, J. (2007). Effects of prosodically modulated sub-phonetic variation on lexical competition. Cognition, 105, 466-476. doi: 10. 1016/j. cognition. 2006. 10. 008.
25. 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. doi: 10. 1126/science. 7777863.
26. Thomassen, J. (1982). Melodic accent: Experiments and a tentative model. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 71, 1596-1605.
27. Woodrow, H. (1911). The role of pitch in rhythm. Psychological Review, 18, 54-77. doi: 10. 1037/h0075201.