Phonological abstraction without phonemes in speech perception

Cognition

Volumn 129, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 356-361

  Mitterer, Holger ^a   Scharenborg, Odette ^a,b   McQueen, James M ^a,c  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Allophones; Perceptual learning; Phonemes; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSONANT; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LINGUISTICS; NORMAL HUMAN; PHONEME; PHONETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ALLOPHONES; PERCEPTUAL LEARNING; PHONEMES; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

AUDITORY PERCEPTION; HUMANS; PHONETICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 84882984117     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: 18737838     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.07.011     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Cutler A., Eisner F., McQueen J.M., Norris D. How abstract phonemic categories are necessary for coping with speaker-related variation. Laboratory Phonology 10 2010, 91-111. de Gruyter, Berlin. C. Fougeron, B. Kühnert, M. D'Imperio, N. Vallée (Eds.).
2. Dahan D., Mead R.L. Context-conditioned generalization in adaptation to distorted speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2010, 36:704-728. 10.1037/a0017449.
3. Eisner F., McQueen J.M. The specificity of perceptual learning in speech processing. Perception & Psychophysics 2005, 67(2):224-238. 10.3758/BF03206487.
4. Goldinger S.D. Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review 1998, 105:251-279. 10.1037//0033-295X.105.2.251.
5. Goldinger S.D., Azuma T. Puzzle-solving science: The quixotic quest for units in speech perception. Journal of Phonetics 2003, 31:305-320. 10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00030-5.
6. Hawkins S. Roles and representations of systematic fine phonetic detail in speech understanding. Journal of Phonetics 2003, 31:373-405. 10.1016/j.wocn.2003.09.006.
7. Jesse A., McQueen J.M. Positional effects in the lexical retuning of speech perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2011, 18:943-950. 10.3758/s13423-011-0129-2.
8. Kawahara H., Masuda-Katsuse I., de Cheveigné A. Restructuring speech representations using a pitch-adaptive time-frequency smoothing and an instantaneous-frequency based F0 extraction. Speech Communication 1999, 27:187-207. 10.1016/S0167-6393(98)00085-5.
9. Kraljic T., Samuel A.G. Perceptual learning for speech: Is there a return to normal?. Cognitive Psychology 2005, 51:141-178. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.05.001.
10. Kraljic T., Samuel A.G. Generalization in perceptual learning for speech. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2006, 13:262-268. 10.3758/BF03193841.
11. Ladefoged P., Maddieson I. Sounds of the world's languages 1996, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
12. Lahiri A., Reetz H. Underspecified recognition. Laboratory Phonology 7 2002, 637-676. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. C. Gussenhoven, N. Warner (Eds.).
13. Maddieson. (1984). The design of the UCLA Phonological Segment Inventory Database (UPSID). In Patterns of sounds. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from doi: doi:10.1017/CBO9780511753459.012.
14. Marslen-Wilson W.D., Warren P. Levels of perceptual representations and processes in lexical access: Words, phonemes, and features. Psychological Review 1994, 101:653-675.
15. McClelland J.L., Elman J.L. The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology 1986, 18:1-86. 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90015-0.
16. McQueen J.M., Cutler A., Norris D. Phonological abstraction in the mental lexicon. Cognitive Science 2006, 30:1113-1126. 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_79.
17. McQueen J.M., Norris D., Cutler A. Lexical influence in phonetic decision-making: Evidence from subcategorical mismatches. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1999, 25:1363-1389. 10.1037/0096-1523.25.5.1363.
18. Mitterer H., Chen Y., Zhou X. Phonological abstraction in processing lexical-tone variation: Evidence from a learning paradigm. Cognitive Science 2011, 35:184-197. 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01140.x.
19. Norris D., McQueen J.M. Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review 2008, 115:357-395. 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.357.
20. Norris D., McQueen J.M., Cutler A. Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology 2003, 47:204-238. 10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00006-9.
21. Port R. Rich memory and distributed phonology. Language Sciences 2010, 32:43-55. 10.1016/j.langsci.2009.06.001.
22. Remez R.E. Neural models of speech perception: A case history. Categorical perception: The groundwork of cognition 1987, 199-225. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass. S. Harnad (Ed.).
23. Savin H.B., Bever T.G. The nonperceptual reality of the phoneme. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1970, 9:295-302. 10.1016/S0022-5371(70)80064-0.
24. Scharenborg O., Norris D., ten Bosch L., McQueen J.M. How should a speech recognizer work?. Cognitive Science 2005, 29:867-918. 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_37.
25. Sjerps M.J., McQueen J.M. The bounds on flexibility in speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2010, 36:195-211. 10.1037/a0016803.
26. Van Bezooijen R. Approximant /r/ in Dutch: Routes and feelings. Speech Communication 2005, 47:15-31. 10.1016/j.specom.2005.04.010.
27. Wickelgren W.A. Context-sensitive coding, associative memory, and serial order in (speech) behavior. Psychological Review 1969, 76:1-15.