Sentence comprehension in competing speech: Dichotic sentence-word priming reveals hemispheric differences in auditory semantic processing

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 27, Issue 7-8, 2012, Pages 1108-1144

  Aydelott, Jennifer ^a   Baer Henney, Dinah ^b   Trzaskowski, Maciej ^a,c   Leech, Robert ^a,d   Dick, Frederic ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

^c KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Auditory language comprehension; Competing speech; Hemispheric asymmetries; Lexical access; Multitalker environments; Semantic priming

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY CANAL; AUDITORY MEMORY; BRAIN ASYMMETRY; COMPREHENSION; DICHOTIC LISTENING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEFT HEMISPHERE; MALE; MASKING; MENTAL PERFORMANCE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPETITION PRIMING; RIGHT HEMISPHERE; SEMANTIC MEMORY; SPEECH; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; VERBAL COMMUNICATION; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 84863834491     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2011.589735     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Arons, B. 1992. A review of the cocktail party effect. Journal of the American Voice I/O Society, 12 July: 35-50.
2. Aydelott, J. and Bates, E. 2004. Effects of acoustic distortion and semantic context on lexical access. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19(1): 29-56.
3. Becker, C. A. 1980. Semantic context effects in visual word recognition: An analysis of semantic strategies. Memory & Cognition, 8(6): 493-512.
4. Becker, C. A. 1982. The development of semantic context effects: Two processes or two strategies?. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(4): 482-502.
5. Bilger, R. C., Nuetzel, J. M., Rabinowitz, W. M. and Rzeczkowski, C. 1984. Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 27(1): 32-48.
6. Boersma, P. 2001. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5(9/10): 341-345.
7. Boulenger, V., Hoen, M., Ferragne, E., Pellegrino, F. and Meunier, F. 2010. Real-time lexical competitions during speech-in-speech comprehension. Speech Communication, 52(3): 246-253.
8. Bronkhorst, A. W. 2000. The cocktail party phenomenon: A review of research on speech intelligibility in multiple-talker conditions. Acta Acustica, 86: 117-128.
9. Brown, G. D. 1984. A frequency count of 190,000 words in the London-Lund Corpus of English Conversation. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 6: 502-532.
10. Brungart, D. S. 2001. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109(3): 1101-1109.
11. Burke, D. M. and Yee, P. L. 1984. Semantic priming during sentence processing by young and older adults. Developmental Psychology, 20(5): 903-910.
12. Cherry, E. C. 1953. Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and two ears. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25(5): 975-979.
13. Coltheart, M. 1981. The MRC Psycholinguistic Database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A: 495-505.
14. den Heyer, K., Briand, K. and Smith, L. 1985. Automatic and strategic effects in semantic priming: An examination of Becker's verification model. Memory & Cognition, 13(3): 228-232.
15. Federmeier, K. D. 2007. Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44(4): 491-505.
16. Fischler, I. and Bloom, P. 1979. Automatic and attentional processes in the effects of sentence contexts on word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(1): 1-20.
17. Fischler, I. and Bloom, P. A. 1980. Rapid processing of the meaning of sentences. Memory & Cognition, 8(3): 216-225.
18. Freyman, R., Balakrishnan, U. and Helfer, K. S. 2001. Spatial release from informational masking in speech recognition. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109: 2112-2122.
19. Garcia Lecumberri, M. L. and Cooke, M. 2006. Effect of masker type on native and non-native consonant perception in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(4): 2445-2454.
20. Hugdahl, K. 2005. Symmetry and asymmetry in the human brain. European Review, 13(S2): 119-133.
21. Hutcherson, R. W., Dirks, D. D. and Morgan, D. E. 1979. Evaluation of the speech perception in noise (SPIN) test. Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, 87(2): 239-245.
22. 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. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61(5): 1337-1351.
23. Kimura, D. 1961. Cerebral dominance and the perception of verbal stimuli. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 15(3): 166-171.
24. Kucera, H. and Francis, W. N. 1967. Computational analysis of present-day American English, Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
25. Kutas, M. and Federmeier, K. D. 2000. Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(12): 463-470.
26. McNamara, T. P. 2005. Semantic priming: Perspectives from memory and word recognition, Hove,m UK: Psychology Press.
27. Meyer, D. E. and Schvaneveldt, R. W. 1971. Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90(2): 227-234.
28. Neely, J. H. 1977. Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106(3): 226-254.
29. Neely, J. H. 1991. "Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories". In Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition, Edited by: Besner, D. and Humphreys, G. W. 264-336. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30. Neely, J. H. and Keefe, D. E. 1989. "Semantic context effects on visual word processing: A hybrid prospective/retrospective processing theory". In The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, Edited by: Bower, G. H. 207-248. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
31. Neely, J. H., Keefe, D. E. and Ross, K. L. 1989. Semantic priming in the lexical decision task: Roles of prospective prime-generated expectancies and retrospective semantic matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(6): 1003-1019.
32. Pichora-Fuller, M. K. 2008. Use of supportive context by younger and older adult listeners: Balancing bottom-up and top-down information processing. International Journal of Audiology, 47(S2): S72-S82.
33. Pickering, M. J. and Garrod, S. 2007. Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(3): 105-110.
34. Plaut, D. C. and Booth, J. R. 2000. Individual and developmental difference: Empirical and computational support for a single-mechanism account of lexical processing. Psychological Review, 107(4): 786-823.
35. Plaut, D. C. and Booth, J. R. 2006. More modeling but still no stages: Reply to Borowsky and Besner. Psychological Review, 113(1): 196-200.
36. Ratcliff, R. 1993. Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3): 510-532.
37. Ratcliff, R. and McKoon, G. 1981. Automatic and strategic priming in recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(2): 204-215.
38. Schuberth, R. E. and Eimas, P. D. 1977. Effects of context on the classification of words and nonwords. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(1): 27-36.
39. Schwanenflugel, P. J., & LaCount, K. L. 1988. Semantic relatedness and the scope of facilitation for upcoming words in sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14 2, 344-354.
40. Schwanenflugel, P. J. and Shoben, E. J. 1985. The influence of sentence constraint on the scope of facilitation for upcoming words. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(2): 232-252.
41. Schwanenflugel, P. J. and White, C. R. 1991. The influence of paragraph information on the processing of upcoming words. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(2): 160-177.
42. Scott, S. K., Blank, C. C., Rosen, S. and Wise, R. J. 2000. Identification of a pathway for intelligible speech in the left temporal lobe. Brain, 123: 2400-2406.
43. Slywotzky, A. J. 1999. Profit patterns: Patterns: 30 ways to anticipate and profit from strategic forces, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
44. Stanovich, K. E. and West, R. F. 1983. On priming by a sentence context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112(1): 1-36.
45. Studdert-Kennedy, M. and Shankweiler, D. 1970. Hemispheric specialization for speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 48(2): 579-594.
46. Townsend, J. T. and Ashby, F. G. 1983. The stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes, Cambridge,m UK: Cambridge University Press.
47. Traxler, M. J., & Foss, D. J. 2000. Effects of sentence constraint on priming in natural language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26 5, 1266-1282.
48. Tyler, L. K., Randall, B. and Marslen-Wilson, W. D. 2002. Phonology and neuropsychology of the English past tense. Neuropsychologia, 40(8): 1154-1166.
49. Van Engen, K. J. and Bradlow, A. R. 2007. Sentence recognition in native-and foreign-language multi-talker background noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121(1): 519-526.
50. Wada, J. and Rasmussen, T. 1960. Intracarotid injection of sodium amytal for the lateralization of cerebral speech dominance. Journal of Neurosurgery, 17(2): 266-282.
51. West, R. F. and Stanovich, K. E. 1982. Source of inhibition in experiments on the effect of sentence context on word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8(5): 385-399.
52. Wlotko, E. W. and Federmeier, K. D. 2007. Finding the right word: Hemispheric asymmetries in the use of sentence context information. Neuropsychologia, 45(13): 3001-3014.
53. Wood, N. L. and Cowan, N. 1995. The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: Attention and memory in the classic selective listening procedure of Cherry (1953). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(3): 243-262.