Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 27, Issue 7-8, 2012, Pages 953-978

  Mattys, Sven L ^a   Davis, Matthew H ^b   Bradlow, Ann R ^c   Scott, Sophie K ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL   (United Kingdom)

^c NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Adverse conditions; Cognitive load; Lexical access; Masking; Signal degradation; Speech recognition

Indexed keywords

AGNOSIA; ATTENTION; ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER; AUDITORY MASKING; BRAIN ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; BRAIN FUNCTION; CLINICAL CLASSIFICATION; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COGNITION; CONVERSATION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; ENVIRONMENT; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FLUENCY DISORDER; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; LANGUAGE ABILITY; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; MEMORY; MEMORY DISORDER; NERVE CELL; NEUROANATOMY; NEUROIMAGING; NEUROPHYSIOLOGY; NOISE; PERCEPTION; POSITIVE FEEDBACK; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECOGNITION; REVIEW; SPEECH; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH DISORDER; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 84863812024     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2012.705006     Document Type: Review

References (201)

1. Adank, P., Evans, B. G., Stuart-Smith, J. and Scott, S. K. 2009. Familiarity with a regional accent facilitates comprehension of that accent in noise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35: 520-529.
2. Akeroyd, M. A. 2008. Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults. International Journal of Audiology, 47: S53-S71.
3. Alais, D., Morrone, C. and Burr, D. 2006. Separate attentional resources for vision and audition. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 273: 1339-1345.
4. Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S. and Tanenhaus, M. K. 1998. Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38: 419-439.
5. Anderson-Hsieh, J., Johnson, R. and Koehler, K. 1992. The relationship between native speaker judgments of nonnative pronunciation and deviance in segmentals, prosody, and syllable structure. Language Learning, 42: 529-555.
6. Arlinger, S., Lunner, T., Lyxell, B. and Pichora-Fuller, M. K. 2009. The emergence of cognitive hearing science. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50: 371-384.
7. Assmann, P. and Summerfield, Q. 2004. "The perception of speech under adverse conditions". In The auditory basis of speech perception, Edited by: Greenberg, S. and Ainsworth, W. 231-308. Berlin: Springer.
8. Baddeley, A. D. 1986. Working memory, New York: Oxford University Press.
9. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. 1974. Working memory. In G. H. Bower, The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 8, pp. 47-89. New York: Academic Press.
10. Badecker, W. 2005. "Speech perception following focal brain injury". In The handbook of speech perception, Edited by: Pisoni, D. B. and Remez, R. E. 524-545. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
11. Bard, E. G., Shillcock, R. C. and Altmann, G. T. M. 1988. The recognition of words after their acoustic offsets in spontaneous speech: Effects of subsequent context. Perception and Psychophysics, 44: 395-408.
12. Bard, E. G., Sotillo, C., Kelly, M. L. and Aylett, M. P. 2001. Taking the hit: Leaving some lexical competition to be resolved post-lexically. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16: 731-737.
13. Blumstein, S. E. 2007. "Word recognition in aphasia". In The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics, Edited by: Gaskell, M. G. 141-155. New York: Oxford University Press.
14. Boothroyd, A. and Nittrouer, S. 1988. Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84: 101-114.
15. Borden, G., Harris, K. and Raphael, L. 2003. Speech science primer: Physiology, acoustics, and perception of speech, 4th ed., Baltimore: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
16. Borsky, S., Tuller, B. and Shapiro, L. P. 1998. "How to milk a coat": The effects of semantic and acoustic information on phoneme categorization. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103: 2670-2676.
17. Bradlow, A. R. and Alexander, J. A. 2007. Semantic-contextual and acoustic-phonetic enhancements for English sentence-in-noise recognition by native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121: 2339-2349.
18. Bradlow, A. R. and Bent, T. 2008. Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech. Cognition, 106: 707-729.
19. Bradlow, A. R, Torretta, G. M. and Pisoni, D. B. 1996. Intelligibility of normal speech I: Global and fine-grained acoustic-phonetic talker characteristics. Speech Communication, 20: 255-272.
20. Bregman, A. S. 1990. Auditory scene analysis: The perceptual organization of sound, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Brennan, S. E. and Schober, M. F. 2001. How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 44: 274-296.
22. Brungart, D. S. 2001. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109: 1101-1109.
23. Brungart, D. S., Simpson, B. D., Darwin, C. J., Arbogast, T. L. and Kidd, G. Jr. 2005. Across-ear interference from parametrically degraded synthetic speech signals in a dichotic cocktail-party listening task. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117: 292-304.
24. Buchsbaum, B. R., Olsen, R. K., Koch, P. and Berman, K. F. 2005. Human dorsal and ventral auditory streams subserve rehearsal-based and echoic processes during verbal working memory. Neuron, 48: 687-697.
25. Caplan, D. and Waters, G. S. 1999. Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22: 77-126.
26. Cherry, E. C. 1953. Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25: 975-979.
27. Clark, H. H. and Fox Tree, J. E. 2002. Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84: 73-111.
28. Clopper, C. G. and Pisoni, D. B. 2004. Effects of talker variability on perceptual learning dialects. Language and Speech, 47: 207-239.
29. Connine, C. M. and Clifton, C. 1987. Interactive use of lexical information in speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13: 291-299.
30. Cooke, M. 2006. A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119: 1562-1573.
31. Cooke, M. P., Garcia Lecumberri, M. L. and Barker, J. 2008. The foreign language cocktail effect party problem: Energetic and informational masking effects in non-native speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123: 414-427.
32. Crowder, R. G. and Morton, J. 1969. Precategorical acoustic storage (PAS). Perception & Psychophysics, 5: 365-373.
33. Cutler, A., Garcia Lecumberri, M. L. and Cooke, M. P. 2008. Consonant identification in noise by native and non-native listeners: Effects of local context. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124: 1264-1268.
34. Cutler, A., Webber, A., Smits, R. and Cooper, N. 2004. Patterns of English phoneme confusions by native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116: 3668-3678.
35. Dahan, D., Drucker, S. J. and Scarborough, R. A. 2008. Talker adaptation in speech perception: Adjusting the signal or the representations?. Cognition, 108: 710-718.
36. Dahan, D. and Magnuson, J. S. 2006. "Spoken-word recognition". In Handbook of psycholinguistics, Edited by: Traxler, M. J. and Gernsbacher, M. A. 249-283. Amsterdam: Academic Press.
37. Dahan, D. and Mead, R. L. 2010. Context-conditioned generalization in adaptation to distorted speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36: 704-728.
38. Darley, F. L., Aronson, A. E. and Brown, J. R. 1969. Differential diagnostic patterns of dysarthria. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 12: 246-269.
39. Darwin, C. J. 2008. Listening to speech in the presence of other sounds. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 363: 1011-1021.
40. Davis, M. H., Coleman, M. R., Absalom, A. R., Rodd, J. M., Johnsrude, I. S., Matta, B. F., Owen, A. M. and Menon, D. K. 2007. Dissociating speech perception and comprehension at reduced levels of awareness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 104: 16032-16037.
41. Davis, M. H., Ford, M. A., Kherif, F. and Johnsrude, I. S. 2011. Does semantic context benefit speech understanding through "top-down" processes? Evidence from time-resolved sparse fMRI. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23: 3914-3932.
42. Davis, M. H. and Gaskell, M. G. 2009. A complementary systems account of word learning: Neural and behavioural evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364: 3773-3800.
43. Davis, M. H. and Johnsrude, I. S. 2003. Hierarchical processing in spoken language comprehension. Journal of Neuroscience, 23: 3423-3431.
44. Davis, M. H. and Johnsrude, I. S. 2007. Hearing speech sounds: Top-down influences on the interface between audition and speech perception. Hearing Research, 229: 132-147.
45. Davis, M. H., Johnsrude, I. S., Hervais-Adelman, A., Taylor, K. and McGettigan, C. 2005. Lexical information drives perceptual learning of distorted speech: Evidence from the comprehension of noise-vocoded sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134: 222-241.
46. Dick, F., Bates, E., Wulfeck, B., Aydelott Utman, J., Dronkers, N. and Gernsbacher, M. A. 2001. Language deficits, localisation and grammar: Evidence for a distributive model of language breakdown in aphasics and normals. Psychological Review, 108: 759-788.
47. Edmister, W. B., Talavage, T. M., Ledden, P. J. and Weisskoff, R. M. 1999. Improved auditory cortex imaging using clustered volume acquisitions. Human Brain Mapping, 7: 89-97.
48. Eisner, F., McGettigan, C., Faulkner, A., Rosen, S. and Scott, S. K. 2010. Inferior frontal gyrus activation predicts individual differences in perceptual learning of cochlear-implant simulations. Journal of Neuroscience, 30: 7179-7186.
49. Eisner, F. and McQueen, J. M. 2005. The specificity of perceptual learning in speech processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 67: 224-238.
50. Ernestus, M., Baayen, H and Schreuder, R. 2002. The recognition of reduced word forms. Brain and Language, 81: 162-173.
51. Ferguson, S. H. and Kewley-Port, D. 2002. Vowel intelligibility in clear and conversational speech for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112: 259-271.
52. Fernandes, T., Kolinsky, R. and Ventura, P. 2010. Cognitive noise is also noise: The impact of attention load on the use of statistical information and coarticulation as speech segmentation cues. Attention, Perception, Psychophysics, 72: 1522-1532.
53. Fernandes, T, Ventura, P. and Kolinsky, R. 2007. Statistical information and coarticulation as cues to word boundaries: A matter of signal quality. Perception & Psychophysics, 69: 856-864.
54. Festen, J. M. and Plomp, R. 1990. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception SRT for impaired and normal hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88: 1725-1736.
55. Floccia, C., Goslin, J., Girard, F. and Konopczynski, G. 2006. Does a regional accent perturb speech processing?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32: 1276-1293.
56. Francis, A. L. 2010. Improved segregation of simultaneous talkers differentially affects perceptual and cognitive capacity demands for recognizing speech in competing speech. Attention, Perception, Psychophysics, 72: 501-516.
57. Francis, A. L. and Nusbaum, H. C. 2009. Effects of intelligibility on working memory demand for speech perception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71: 1360-1374.
58. Frankish, C. 2008. Precategorical acoustic storage and the perception of speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 58: 815-836.
59. Freyman, R. L., Balakrishnan, U. and Helfer, K. 2004. Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115: 2246-2256.
60. Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K. and Frisch, S. 1999. Lexical integration: Sequential effects of syntactic and semantic information. Memory and Cognition, 27: 438-453.
61. Ganong, W. F. 1980. Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6: 110-125.
62. Garci Lecumberri, M. L. and Cooke, M. 2006. Effect of masker type on native and non-native consonant perception in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119: 2445-2454.
63. Garci Lecumberri, M. L., Cooke, M. and Cutler, A. 2010. Non-native speech perception in adverse conditions: A review. Speech Communication, 52: 864-886.
64. Gaskell, M. G., Quinlan, P. T., Tamminen, J. and Cleland, A. A. 2008. The nature of phoneme representation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137: 282-302.
65. Giraud, A. L., Kell, C., Thierfelder, C., Sterzer, P., Russ, M. O., Preibisch, C. and Kleinschmidt, A. 2004. Contributions of sensory input, auditory search and verbal comprehension to cortical activity during speech processing. Cerebral Cortex, 14: 247-255.
66. Goldinger, S. D. 1998. Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105: 251-279.
67. Goldstone, R. L. 1998. Perceptual learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49: 585-612.
68. Gosselin, P. A. and Gagné, J. -P. 2010. Use of dual-task paradigm to measure listening effort. Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 34: 43-51.
69. Grosjean, F. 1980. Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm. Perception & Psychophysics, 28: 267-283.
70. Haggort, P. and van Berkum, J. 2007. Beyond the sentence given. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362: 801-811.
71. Hall, D. A., Haggard, M. P., Akeroyd, M. A., Palmer, A. R., Summerfield, A. Q.Elliott, M. R. 1999. "Sparse" temporal sampling in auditory fMRI. Human Brain Mapping, 7: 213-223.
72. Hannemann, R., Obleser, J. and Eulitz, C. 2007. Top-down knowledge supports the retrieval of lexical information from degraded speech. Brain Research, 1153: 134-143.
73. Harding, A. and Grunwell, P. 1996. Characteristics of cleft palate speech. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 31: 331-357.
74. Hazan, V., & Baker, R. 2011 Acoustic-phonetic characteristics of speech produced with communicative intent to counter adverse listening conditions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130, 2139-2152.
75. Heinrich, A., Carlyon, R., Davis, M. H. and Johnsrude, I. S. 2008. Illusory vowels resulting from perceptual continuity: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20: 1737-1752.
76. Heinrich, A., Carlyon, R., Davis, M. H. and Johnsrude, I. S. 2011. The continuity illusion does not depend on attentional state: fMRI evidence from illusory vowels. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23: 2675-2689.
77. Helfer, K. S. 1994. Binaural cues and consonant perception in reverberation and noise. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37: 429-438.
78. Hervais-Adelman, A., Davis, M. H., Johnsrude, I. S. and Carlyon, R. P. 2008. Perceptual learning of noise vocoded words: Effects of feedback and lexicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34: 460-474.
79. Hervais-Adelman, A., Davis, M. H., Taylor, K., Johnsrude, I. S. and Carlyon, R. P. 2011. Generalization of perceptual learning of vocoded speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37: 283-295.
80. Hickok, G. and Poeppel, D. 2007. The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8: 393-402.
81. Holt, L. L. and Lotto, A. J. 2008. Speech perception within an auditory cognitive science framework. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17: 42-46.
82. thconference on audio forensics. Copenhagen, Denmark.
83. Huggins, A. W. F. 1975. Temporally segmented speech. Perception & Psychophysics, 18: 149-157.
84. Iyer, N., Brungart, D. S. and Simpson, B. D. 2010. Effects of target-masker contextual similarity on the multimasker penalty in a three-talker diotic listening task. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128: 2998-3010.
85. Jacoby, L. L. 1991. A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30: 513-541.
86. Jacquemot, C., Dupoux, E., Decouche, O. and Bachoud-Lévi, A.-C. 2006. Misperception in sentences but not in words: Speech perception and the phonological buffer. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23: 949-971.
87. Jesse, A., McQueen, J. M. and Page, M. 2007. "The locus of talker-specific effects in spoken word recognition". In Proceedings of the 16th international congress of phonetic sciences, Edited by: Trouvain, J. and Barry, W. J. 1921-1924. Dudweiler: Pirrot.
88. Jiang, J., Chen, M. and Alwan, A. 2006. On the perception of voicing in syllable-initial plosives in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119: 1092-1105.
89. Juang, B. H. 1991. Speech recognition in adverse environments. Computer Speech and Language, 5: 275-294.
90. Junqua, J.-C. and Haton, J.-P. 1995. Robustness in automatic speech recognition: Fundamentals and applications, Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
91. Just, M. A. and Carpenter, P. A. 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99: 122-149.
92. Kahneman, D. 1973. Attention and effort, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
93. Kalikow, D. N., Stevens, K. N. and Elliott, L. L. 1977. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61: 1337-1351.
94. Kalm, K., Davis, M. H., Norris, D. 2012 Neural mechanisms underlying the temporal grouping effect in short-term memory. Human Brain Mapping, 33, 1634-1647.
95. Kent, R. D., Weismer, G., Kent, J. F. and Rosenbek, J. C. 1989. Toward phonetic intelligibility testing in dysarthria. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54: 482-499.
96. Kidd, G. Jr, Mason, C. R., Richards, V. M., Gallun, F. J. and Durlach, N. I. 2007. "Informational masking". In Springer Handbook of Auditory Research, 29: Auditory Perception of Sound Sources, Edited by: Yost, W. 143-190. New York: Springer.
97. Kraljic, T., Brennan, S. E. and Samuel, A. G. 2008. Accommodating variation: Dialects, idiolects, and speech processing. Cognition, 107: 54-81.
98. Kraljic, T. and Samuel, A.G. 2007. Perceptual adjustments to multiple speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 56: 1-15.
99. Krause, J. C. and Braida, L. D. 2002. Investigating alternative forms of clear speech: The effects of speaking rate and speaking mode on intelligibility. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112: 2165-2172.
100. Leek, M. R. 1987. "Directed attention in complex sound perception". In Auditory processing of complex sounds, Edited by: Yost, W. A. and Watson, C. S. 278-288. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
101. Leek, M. R. and Watson, C. S. 1984. Learning to detect auditory pattern components. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 76: 1037-1044.
102. Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
103. Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S. and Van Dyke, J. A. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10: 447-454.
104. Liss, J. M. 2007. "The role of speech perception in motor speech disorders". In Motor speech disorders, Edited by: Weismer, G. 187-219. San Diego: Plural Publishing.
105. Liss, J. M., Spitzer, S., Caviness, J. N., Adler, C. and Edwards, B. 1998. Syllabic strength and lexical boundary decisions in the perception of hypokinetic dysarthric speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104: 2457-2466.
106. Lombard, E. 1911. Le signe de l'élévation de la voix. Annales des Maladies de l'Oreille, du Larynx, du Nez et du Pharynx, 37: 101-119.
107. Luce, P. A. and McLennan, C. T. 2005. "Spoken word recognition: The challenge of variation". In The handbook of speech perception, Edited by: Pisoni, D. B. and Remez, R. E. 591-609. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
108. Luce, P. A., McLennan, C. T. and Charles-Luce, J. 2003. "Abstractness and specificity in spoken word recognition: Indexical and allophonic variability in long-term repetition priming". In Rethinking implicit memory, Edited by: Bowers, J. and Marsolek, C. 197-214. New York: Oxford University Press.
109. Luce, P. A. and Pisoni, D. B. 1998. Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19: 1-36.
110. Marslen-Wilson, W. D. 1984. Function and process in spoken word recognition. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis, Attention and performance X. Control of language processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
111. Marslen-Wilson, W. D. and Tyler, L. K. 1980. The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8: 1-71.
112. Mattys, S. L. 2004. Stress versus coarticulation: Towards an integrated approach to explicit speech segmentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30: 397-408.
113. Mattys, S. L., Brooks, J. and Cooke, M. 2009. Recognizing speech under a processing load: Dissociating energetic from informational factors. Cognitive Psychology, 59: 203-243.
114. Mattys, S. L., Carroll, L. M., Li, C. K. W. and Chan, S. L. Y. 2010. Effects of energetic and informational masking on speech segmentation by native and non-native speakers. Speech Communication, 52: 887-899.
115. Mattys, S. L. and Liss, J. M. 2008. On building models of spoken-word recognition: When there is as much to learn from natural SPiquotSPiodditiesSPiquotSPi as from artificial normality. Perception & Psychophysics, 70: 1235-1242.
116. Mattys, S. L., Pleydell-Pearce, C. W., Melhorn, J. F. and Whitecross, S. E. 2005. Detecting silent pauses in speech: A new tool for measuring on-line lexical and semantic processing. Psychological Science, 16: 958-964.
117. Mattys, S. L., White, L. and Melhorn, J. F. 2005. Integration of multiple speech segmentation cues: A hierarchical framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134: 477-500.
118. Mattys, S. L. and Wiget, L. 2011. Effect of cognitive load on speech recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 65: 145-160.
119. Maye, J., Aslin, R. N. and Tanenhaus, M. K. 2008. The weckud wetch of the wast: Lexical adaptation to a novel accent. Cognitive Science, 32: 543-562.
120. Mayo, L. H., Florentine, M. and Buss, S. 1997. Age of second-language acquisition and perception of speech in noise. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40: 686-693.
121. McClelland, J. L., Mirman, D. and Holt, L. L. 2006. Are there interactive processes in speech perception?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10: 363-369.
122. McLennan, C. T. and 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: 306-321.
123. McQueen, J. M. 2007. "Eight questions about spoken-word recognition". In The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics, Edited by: Gaskell, M. G. 37-53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
124. McQueen, J. M., Cutler, A. and Norris, D. 2006. Phonological abstraction in the mental lexicon. Cognitive Science, 30: 1113-1126.
125. McQueen, J. M., Norris, D and Cutler, A. 2006. Are there really interactive processes in speech perception?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10: 533
126. Miller, G. A., Heise, G. A. and Lichten, W. 1951. The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41: 329-335.
127. Miller, G. A. and Isard, S. 1963. Some perceptual consequences of linguistic rules. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2: 217-228.
128. Miller, A. A. and Licklider, J. C. R. 1950. The intelligibility of interrupted speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27: 167-173.
129. Mirman, D., McClelland, J. L., Holt, L. L. and Magnuson, J. S. 2008. Effects of attention on the strength of lexical influences on speech perception: Behavioral experiments and computational mechanisms. Cognitive Science, 32: 398-417.
130. Mitterer, H. 2006. Listeners recover /t/s that speakers reduce: Evidence from /t/-lenition in Dutch. Journal of Phonetics, 34: 73-103.
131. Moore, R. K. 2010. "Cognitive approaches to spoken language technology". In Speech technology: Theory and applications, Edited by: Chen, F. and Jokinen, K. 89-103. New York: Springer.
132. Munro, M. J. and Derwing, T. M. 1995. Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perception of native and foreign-accented speech. Language and Speech, 38: 289-306.
133. Nábelek, A. K. 1988. Identification of vowels in quiet, noise, and reverberation: Relationships with age and hearing loss. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84: 476-484.
134. Nábelek, A. K. and Donahue, A. M. 1984. Perception of consonants in reverberation by native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 75: 632-634.
135. Neisser, U. 1967. Cognitive psychology, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
136. Newman, R. S., Sawusch, J. R. and Wunnenberg, T. 2011. Cues and cue interactions in segmenting words in fluent speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 64: 460-476.
137. Nilsson, M. and Kleijn, W. B. 2001. Avoiding overestimation in bandwidth extension of telephony speech. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2: 869-872.
138. Norris, D. and McQueen, J. M. 2008. Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review, 115: 357-395.
139. Norris, D., McQueen, J. M. and Cutler, A. 2003. Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology, 47: 204-238.
140. Nusbaum, H. and Magnuson, J. 1997. "Talker normalization: Phonetic constancy as a cognitive process". In Talker variability in speech processing, Edited by: Johnson, K. and Mullenix, J. 109-132. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
141. Nusbaum, H. and Morin, T. 1992. "Paying attention to differences among talkers". In Speech perception, production, and linguistic structure, Edited by: Tohkura, Y., Bateson, E. and Sagisaka, Y. 66-94. Tokyo: IOS Press.
142. Nusbaum, H. C. and Schwab, E. X. 1986. "The role of attention and active processing in speech perception". In Pattern recognition by humans and machines: Vol. I. Speech perception, Edited by: Schwab, E. C. and Nusbaum, H. C. 113-157. San Diego: Academic Press.
143. Nygaard, L. C., Sommers, M. S. and Pisoni, D. B. 1994. Speech perception as a talker-contingent process. Psychological Science, 5: 42-46.
144. Obleser, J., Eisner, F. and Kotz, S. A. 2008. Bilateral speech comprehension reflects differential sensitivity to spectral and temporal features. Journal of Neuroscience, 28: 8116-8123.
145. Obleser, J. and Kotz, S. A. 2010. Expectancy constraints in degraded speech modulate the language comprehension network. Cerebral Cortex, 20: 633-640.
146. Obleser, J. and Kotz, S. A. 2011. Multiple brain signatures of integration in the comprehension of degraded speech. Neuroimage, 55: 713-723.
147. Obleser, J., Meyer, L. and Friederici, A. D. 2011. Dynamic assignment of neural resources in auditory comprehension of complex sentences. Neuroimage, 56: 2310-2320.
148. Obleser, J., Wise, R. J. S., Dresner, M. A. and Scott, S. K. 2007. Functional integration across brain regions improves speech perception under adverse conditions. Journal of Neuroscience, 27: 2283-2289.
149. Orfanidou, E., Davis, M. H., Ford, M. A. and Marslen-Wilson, W. D. 2011. Perceptual and response components in repetition priming of spoken words and pseudowords. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64: 96-121.
150. Osberger, M. J., & McGarr, N. S. 1982. Speech production characteristics of the hearing-impaired. In N. Lass, Speech and language: Advances in basic research and practice, Vol. 8 pp. 221-284. New York: Academic Press.
151. Pallier, C., Sebastian-Galles, N., Dupoux, E., Christophe, A. and Mehler, J. 1998. Perceptual adjustment to time-compressed speech: A cross-linguistic study. Memory & Cognition, 26: 844-851.
152. Parikh, G. and Loizou, P. 2005. The influence of noise on vowel and consonant cues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118: 3874-3888.
153. Peelle, J. E., Eason, R. J., Schmitter, S., Schwarzbauer, C. and Davis, M. H. 2010. Evaluating an acoustically quiet EPI sequence for use in fMRI studies of speech and auditory processing. Neuroimage, 52: 1410-1419.
154. Peelle, J. E. and Wingfield, A. 2005. Dissociable components of perceptual learning revealed by adult age differences in adaptation to time-compressed speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31: 1315-1330.
155. Picheny, M. A., Durlach, N. I. and Braida, L. D. 1985. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing I: Intelligibility difference between clear and conversational speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28: 96-103.
156. Picheny, M. A., Durlach, N. I. and Braida, L. D. 1986. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing II: Acoustic characteristics of clear and conversational speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 29: 434-446.
157. Picheny, M. A., Durlach, N. I. and Braida, L. D. 1989. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing. III. An attempt to determine the contribution of speaking rate to differences in intelligibility between clear and conversational speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32: 600-603.
158. Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Schneider, B. A. and Daneman, M. 1995. How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97: 593-608.
159. Pichora-Fuller, M. K. and Singh, G. 2006. Effects of age on auditory and cognitive processing: Implications for hearing aid fitting and audiological rehabilitation. Trends in Amplification, 10: 29-59.
160. Pisoni, D. B. 1997. "Some thoughts on "normalization" in speech perception". In Talker variability in speech processing, Edited by: Johnson, K. and Mullennix, J. W. 9-32. San Diego: Academic Press.
161. Pisoni, D. B. and Levi, S. V. 2007. "Some observations on representations and representational specificity in speech perception and spoken word recognition". In The Oxford handbook of Psycholinguistics, Edited by: Gaskell, M. G. 3-18. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
162. Poeppel, D., Idsardi, W. J. and van Wassenhove, V. 2008. Speech perception at the interface of neurobiology and linguistics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 363: 1071-1086.
163. Prigatano, G. P. and Schacter, D. L. 1991. Awareness of deficit after brain injury, New York: Oxford University Press.
164. Rabbitt, P. M. 1968. Channel-capacity, intelligibility and immediate memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20: 241-248.
165. Radeau, M., Morais, J., Mousty, P. and Bertelson, P. 2000. The effect of speaking rate on the role of the uniqueness point in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 42: 406-422.
166. Rauschecker, J. P. and Scott, S. K. 2009. Maps and streams in the auditory cortex: nonhuman primates illuminate human speech processing. Nature Neuroscience, 12: 718-724.
167. Rodd, J. M., Johnsrude, I. S. and Davis, M. H. 2010. The role of domain-general frontal systems in language comprehension: Evidence from dual-task interference and semantic ambiguity. Brain and Language, 115: 182-188.
168. Rogers, C. L., Lister, J. J., Febor, D. M., Besing, J. M. and Abrams, H. B. 2006. Effects of bilingualism, noise, and reverberation on speech perception by listeners with normal hearing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27: 465-485.
169. Rönnberg, J., Rudner, M., Foo, C. and Lunner, T. 2008. Cognition counts: A working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU). International Journal of Audiology, 47: S171-S177.
170. Rönnberg, J, Rudner, M., Lunner, T. and Zekveld, A. A. 2010. When cognition kicks in: Working memory and speech understanding in noise. Noise & Health, 12: 263-269.
171. Rostolland, D. 1982. Acoustic features of shouted voice. Acustica, 50: 118-125.
172. Rostolland, D. 1985. Intelligibility of shouted voice. Acustica, 57: 103-121.
173. Samuel, A. G. 1981. Phonemic restoration: Insights from a new methodology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110: 474-494.
174. Samuel, A. G. and Kraljic, T. 2009. Perceptual learning for speech. Attention, Perception, Psychophysics, 71: 1207-1218.
175. Sarampalis, A., Kalluri, S., Edwards, B. and Hafter, E. 2009. Objective measures of listening effort: Effects of background noise and noise reduction. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52: 1230-1240.
176. Scharenborg, O. 2007. Reaching over the gap: A review of efforts to link human and automatic speech recognition research. Speech Communication, 49: 336-347.
177. Schneider, B. A., Daneman, M. and Murphy, D. R. 2005. Speech comprehension difficulties in older adults: Cognitive slowing or age-related changes in hearing?. Psychology and Aging, 20: 261-271.
178. Schwarzbauer, C., Davis, M. H., Rodd, J. M. and Johnsrude, I. S. 2006. Sparse imaging with interleaved, silent steady state (ISSS). Neuroimage, 25: 774-782.
179. Scott, S. K., Rosen, S., Beaman, C. P., Davis, J. and Wise, R. J. S. 2009. The neural processing of masked speech: Evidence for different mechanisms in the left and right temporal lobes. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125: 1737-1743.
180. Scott, S. K., Rosen, S., Wickham, L. and Wise, R. J. S. 2004. A positron emission tomography study of the neural basis of informational and energetic masking effects in speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115: 813-821.
181. Shahin, A. J., Bishop, C. W. and Miller, L. M. 2009. Neural mechanisms for illusory filling-in of degraded speech. Neuroimage, 44: 1133-1143.
182. Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F.-G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J. and Ekelid, M. 1995. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science, 270: 303-304.
183. Shriberg, E. E. 1994. Preliminaries to a theory of speech disfluencies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.
184. Sidaras, S. K., Alexander, J. E. D. and Nygaard, L. D. 2009. Perceptual learning of systematic variation in Spanish-accented speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125: 3306-3316.
185. Simpson, S. and Cooke, M. P. 2005. Consonant identification in N-talker babble is a nonmonotonic function of N. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118: 2775-2778.
186. Smiljanic, R. and Bradlow, A. R. 2009. Speaking and hearing clearly: Talker and listener factors in speaking style changes. Linguistics and Language Compass, 3: 236-264.
187. Smith, M. R., Cutler, A., Butterfield, S. and Nimmo-Smith, I. 1989. The perception of rhythm and word boundaries in noise-masked speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32: 912-920.
188. Summers, W. V., Pisoni, D. B., Bernacki, R. H., Pedlow, R. I. and Stokes, M. A. 1988. Effects of noise on speech production: Acoustic and perceptual analyses. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84: 917-928.
189. Sumner, M. and Samuel, A. G. 2009. The effect of experience on the perception and representation of dialect variants. Journal of Memory and Language, 60: 487-501.
190. Swinney, D. 1979. Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18: 645-659.
191. Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. and Seidenberg, M. 1979. Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18: 427-440.
192. Toro, J. M., Sinnett, S. and Soto-Faraco, S. 2005. The consequences of diverting attention within and across sensory modalities on statistical learning. Cognition, 97: B25-B34.
193. Uchanski, R. M. 2005. "Clear speech". In Handbook of speech perception, Edited by: Pisoni, D. B. and Remez, R. E. 207-235. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
194. Van Engen, K. J. and Bradlow, A. R. 2007. Sentence recognition in native and foreign-language multi-talker background noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121: 519-526.
195. Van Petten, C., Coulson, S., Rubin, S., Plante, E. and Parks, M. 1999. Timecourse of word identification and semantic integration in spoken language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25: 394-417.
196. Vitevitch, M. S. and Luce, P. A. 1999. Probabilistic phonotactics and spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40: 374-408.
197. Warren, R. M. and Obusek, C. 1971. Speech perception and phonemic restorations. Perception & Psychophysics, 9: 358-363.
198. Welby, P. 2007. The role of early fundamental frequency rises and elbows in French word segmentation. Speech Communication, 49: 28-48.
199. Wild, C., Davis, M. H. and Johnsrude, I. S. 2012. The perceptual clarity of speech modulates activity in primary auditory cortex: fMRI evidence of interactive processes in speech perception. Neuroimage, 60: 1490-1502.
200. Wilson, B. S., Finley, C. C., Lawson, D. T., Wolford, R. D., Eddington, D. K. and Rabinowitz, W. M. 1991. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature, 352: 236-238.
201. Zwitserlood, P. 1989. The locus of effects of sentential-semantic context in spoken-word processing. Cognition, 32: 25-64.