Distal rhythm influences whether or not listeners hear a word in continuous speech: Support for a perceptual grouping hypothesis

Cognition

Volumn 131, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 69-74

  Morrill, Tuuli H ^a,b   Dilley, Laura C ^a,b   McAuley, J Devin ^b   Pitt, Mark A ^c  

^a Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Perceptual grouping; Rhythm; Speech rate; Word recognition; Word segmentation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; GRAMMAR; HEARING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HYPOTHESIS; NORMAL HUMAN; PITCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RHYTHM; SPEECH; SPEECH RATE; WORD RECOGNITION; YOUNG ADULT; COMPREHENSION; DISTAL RHYTHM; RESPONSE TIME; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

PERCEPTUAL GROUPING; RHYTHM; SPEECH RATE; WORD RECOGNITION; WORD SEGMENTATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; HUMANS; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84892842635     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: 18737838     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.006     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Ahissar E., Nagarajan S., Ahissar M., Protopapas A., Mahncke H., Merzenich M.M. Speech comprehension is correlated with temporal response patterns recorded from auditory cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 2001, 98:13367-13372.
2. Andruski J.E., Blumstein S.E., Burton M. The effect of subphonetic differences on lexical access. Cognition 1994, 52(3):163-187.
3. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-42.
4. Bell A., Jurafsky D., Fosler-Lussier E., Girand C., Gregory M., Gildea D. Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2003, 113(2):1001-1024.
5. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2002). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. (Version 4.0.26): Software and manual available online at <. http://www.praat.org.
6. Boltz M.G. Tempo discrimination of musical patterns: Effects due to pitch and rhythmic structure. Perception & Psychophysics 1998, 60(8):1357-1373.
7. Byrd D., Krivokapic J., Sungbok L. How far, how long: On the temporal scope of prosodic boundary effects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2006, 120(3):1589-1599.
8. Christophe A., Gout A., Peperkamp S., Morgan J. Discovering words in the continuous speech stream: The role of prosody. Journal of Phonetics 2003, 31:585-598.
9. Cole R.A., Jakimik J. Segmenting speech into words. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1980, 64:1323-1332.
10. Cutler A., Darwin C. Phoneme-monitoring reaction time and preceding prosody: Effects of stop closure duration and of fundamental frequency. Perception & Psychophysics 1981, 29:217-224.
11. Davis M.H., Marslen-Wilson W.D., Gaskell M.G. Leading up the lexical garden path: Segmentation and ambiguity in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2002, 28:218-244.
12. Dilley L.C., Mattys S., Vinke L. Potent prosody: Comparing the effects of distal prosody, proximal prosody, and semantic context on word segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language 2010, 63:274-294.
13. Dilley L.C., McAuley J.D. Distal prosodic context affects word segmentation and lexical processing. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 59(3):294-311.
14. Dilley L.C., Pitt M. Altering context speech rate can cause words to appear or disappear. Psychological Science 2010, 21(11):1664-1670.
15. Ernestus M., Baayen H., Schreuder R. The recognition of reduced word forms. Brain and Language 2002, 81:162-173.
16. Giraud A.L., Poeppel D. Cortical oscillations and speech processing: Emerging computational principles and operations. Nature Neuroscience 2012, 15(4):511-517.
17. Goswami U. A temporal sampling framework for developmental dyslexia. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2011, 15(1):3-10.
18. Handel S. Listening: An introduction to the perception of auditory events 1989, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
19. Heffner C., Dilley L., McAuley J.D., Pitt M. When cues collide: How distal speech rate and proximal acoustic information jointly determine word perception. Language and Cognitive Processes 2012, iFirst(1-28).
20. Jaeger T.F. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 59:434-446.
21. Johnson, K. (2004). Massive reduction in conversational American English. Paper presented at the Spontaneous speech: Data and analysis. In Proceedings of the 1st Session of the 10th International Symposium, Tokyo, Japan.
22. Keating P., Cho T., Fougeron C., Hsu C.-S. Domain-initial articulatory strengthening in four languages. Phonetic interpretation 2003, 143-161. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. J. Local, R. Ogden, R. Temple (Eds.).
23. Klatt D.H. Review of selected models of speech perception. Lexical representation and process 1989, 169-226. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. W.D. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.).
24. Kotz S.A., Schwartze M. Cortical speech processing unplugged: A timely subcortico-cortical framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2010, 14(9):392-399.
25. Marslen-Wilson W.D., Welsh A. Processing interactions during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognition 1978, 10:487-509.
26. Martin J.G. Rhythmic (heirarchical) versus serial structure in speech and other behavior. Psychological Review 1972, 79(6):487-509.
27. Mattys S.L., Melhorn J.F. Sentential, lexical, and acoustic effects on the perception of word boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2007, 122(1):554-567.
28. Mattys S.L., White L., Melhorn J.F. Integration of multiple speech segmentation cues: A hierarchical framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2005, 134(4):477-500.
29. McClelland J.L., Elman J.L. The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology 1986, 18:1-86.
30. McQueen J.M. Segmentation of continuous speech using phonotactics. Journal of Memory and Language 1998, 39(1):21-46.
31. Norris D., McQueen J.M. Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review 2008, 115(2):357-395.
32. Peelle J.E., Davis M.H. Neural oscillations carry speech rhythm through to comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 2012, 3(320):1-17.
33. Quene H., Port R.F. Effects of timing regularity and metrical expectancy on spoken-word perception. Phonetica 2005, 62:1-13.
34. Reinisch E., Jesse A., McQueen J.M. Speaking rate from proximal and distal contexts is used during word segmentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2011, 37(3):978-996.
35. Salverda A.P., Dahan D., McQueen J. The role of prosodic boundaries in the resolution of lexical embedding in speech comprehension. Cognition 2003, 90:51-89.
36. Shields J.L., McHugh A., Martin J.G. Reaction time to phoneme targets as a function of rhythmic cues in continuous speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1974, 102(2):250-255.
37. Smith K.C., Cuddy L.L. Effects of metric and harmonic rhythm on the detection of pitch alterations in melodic sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1989, 15(3):457.
38. Soto-Faraco S., Sebastian-Galles N., Cutler A. Segmental and suprasegmental mismatch in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language 2001, 45:412-432.
39. Stevens K.N. Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2002, 111(4):1872-1891.
40. Van Donselaar W., Koster M., Cutler A. Exploring the role of lexical stress in lexical recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2005, 58A(2):251-273.
41. Vitevitch M.S., Luce P.A. Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 1999, 40(3):374-408.
42. Woodrow H. A quantitative study of rhythm. Archives of Psychology 1909, 14:1-66.