Grammatical context constrains lexical competition in spoken word recognition

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 676-687

  Strand, Julia ^a   Simenstad, Andrea ^a   Cooperman, Allison ^a   Rowe, Jonathon ^a  

^a CARLETON COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Auditory word recognition; Language comprehension; Lexical processing; Psycholinguistics; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ADULT; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; RECOGNITION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84901037088     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: 15325946     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13421-013-0378-6     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Abrams, L., & Rodriguez, E. L. (2005). Syntactic class influences phonological priming of tip-of-the-tongue resolution. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(6), 1018-23. doi: 10. 3758/BF03206437.
2. Abrams, L., Trunk, D. L., & Merrill, L. A. (2007). Why a superman cannot help a tsunami: Activation of grammatical class influences resolution of young and older adults' tip-of-the-tongue states. Psychology & Aging, 22(4), 835-45. doi: 10. 1037/0882-7974. 22. 4. 835.
3. Adani, F. (2011). Rethinking the acquisition of relative clauses in Italian: Towards a grammatically based account. Journal of Child Language, 38(1), 141-65. doi: 10. 1017/S0305000909990250.
4. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics using R. Cambridge University Press.
5. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390-412. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2007. 12. 005.
6. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., & Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445-59. doi: 10. 3758/BF03193014.
7. Bicknell, K., Elman, J. L., Hare, M., McRae, K., & Kutas, M. (2010). Effects of event knowledge in processing verbal arguments. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(4), 489-505. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2010. 08. 004.
8. Brock, J., & Nation, K. (2013). The hardest butter to button: Immediate context effects in spoken word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1-27.
9. Brouwer, S., Mitterer, H., & Huettig, F. (2012). Speech reductions change the dynamics of competition during spoken word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(4), 539-571. doi: 10. 1080/01690965. 2011. 555268.
10. Brysbaert, M., New, B., & Keuleers, E. (2012). Adding part-of-speech information to the SUBTLEX-US word frequencies. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 991-7. doi: 10. 3758/s13428-012-0190-4.
11. Connine, C. M. (1987). Constraints on interactive processes in auditory word recognition: The role of sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(5), 527-538. doi: 10. 1016/0749-596X(87)90138-0.
12. Dahan, D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2001). Time course of frequency effects in spoken-word recognition: evidence from eye movements. Cognitive Psychology, 42(4), 317-67. doi: 10. 1006/cogp. 2001. 0750.
13. Dahan, D., Swingley, D., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Magnuson, J. S. (2000). Linguistic gender and spoken word recognition in French. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(4), 465-480. doi: 10. 1006/jmla. 1999. 2688.
14. Dahan, D., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2004). Continuous mapping from sound to meaning in spoken-language comprehension: immediate effects of verb-based thematic constraints. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 498-513. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 30. 2. 498.
15. Damasio, A. R., & Tranel, D. (1993). Nouns and Verbs are Retrieved with Differently Distributed Neural Systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 90(11), 4957-4960. doi: 10. 1073/pnas. 90. 11. 4957.
16. Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93(3), 283-321. doi: 10. 1037//0033-295X. 93. 3. 283.
17. Dixon, P. (2008). Models of accuracy in repeated-measures designs. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 447-456. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2007. 11. 004.
18. Fay, D., & Cutler, A. (1977). Malapropisms and the Structure of the Mental Lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(3), 505-520. Retrieved from http://www. jstor. org/stable/10. 2307/4177997.
19. Feld, J., & Sommers, M. S. (2011). There goes the neighborhood: Lipreading and the structure of the mental lexicon. Speech Communication, 53(2), 220-228. doi: 10. 1016/j. specom. 2010. 09. 003.
20. Forster, K. I. (1978). Accessing the mental lexicon. In E. Walker (Ed.), Explorations in the biology of language (pp. 139-174). Montgomery, VT: Bradford Books.
21. Forster, K. I., & Bednall, E. S. (1976). Terminating and exhaustive search in lexical access. Memory & Cognition, 4(1), 53-61. doi: 10. 3758/BF03213255.
22. Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(2), 78-84. doi: 10. 1016/S1364-6613(00)01839-8.
23. Gahl, S., Yao, Y., & Johnson, K. (2012). Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 789-806. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2011. 11. 006.
24. Goldinger, S. D., Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1989). Priming lexical neighbors of spoken words: Effects of competition and inhibition. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 501-518. doi: 10. 1016/0749-596X(89)90009-0.
25. Hagoort, P. (2003). How the brain solves the binding problem for language: a neurocomputational model of syntactic processing. NeuroImage, 20, 18-29. doi: 10. 1016/j. neuroimage. 2003. 1796.
26. Hagoort, P. (2005). On Broca, brain, and binding: A new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(9), 416-23. doi: 10. 1016/j. tics. 2005. 07. 004.
27. Isenberg, D. (1980). A top-down effect on the identification of function words. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 68(S1), S48. doi: 10. 1121/1. 2004759.
28. Iverson, P., Bernstein, L. E., & Auer, E. T. (1998). Modeling the interaction of phonemic intelligibility and lexical structure in audiovisual word recognition. Speech Communication, 26(1-2), 45-63. doi: 10. 1016/S0167-6393(98)00049-1.
29. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434-446. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2007. 11. 007.
30. Janse, E., & Quené, H. (2004). On measuring multiple lexical activation using the cross-modal semantic priming technique. In H. Q. & V. J. Heuven (Ed.), On speech and language: Studies for Sieb G. Nooteboom (pp. 105-114). Utrecht: LOT.
31. Kaiser, A. R. (2003). Talker and lexical effects on audiovisual word recognition by adults with cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46(2), 390-404. doi: 10. 1044/1092-4388(2003/032).
32. Kantola, L., & van Gompel, R. P. G. (2011). Between- and within-language priming is the same: evidence for shared bilingual syntactic representations. Memory & Cognition, 39(2), 276-90. doi: 10. 3758/s13421-010-0016-5.
33. Kootstra, G. J., van Hell, J. G., & Dijkstra, T. (2010). Syntactic alignment and shared word order in code-switched sentence production: Evidence from bilingual monologue and dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(2), 210-231. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2010. 03. 006.
34. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307(5947), 161-3. doi: 10. 1038/307161a0.
35. Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Models of word production. Trends in cognitive sciences, 3(6), 223-232. Retrieved from http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pubmed/10354575.
36. Luce, P. A., Goldinger, S. D., Auer, E. T., & Vitevitch, M. S. (2000). Phonetic priming, neighborhood activation, and PARSYN. Perception, 62(3), 615-625. doi: 10. 3758/BF03212113.
37. Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The Neighborhood Activation Model. Ear & Hearing, 19(1), 1-36. doi: 10. 1097/00003446-199802000-00001.
38. Magnuson, J. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2008). Immediate effects of form-class constraints on spoken word recognition. Cognition, 108(3), 866-73. doi: 10. 1016/j. cognition. 2008. 06. 005.
39. Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8(1), 784-786. doi: 10. 1016/0010-0277(80)90015-3.
40. McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 1-86. doi: 10. 1016/0010-0285(86)90015-0.
41. Miceli, G., Silveri, M. C. C., Nocentini, U., & Caramazza, A. (1988). Patterns of dissociation in comprehension and production of nouns and verbs. Aphasiology, 2(3-4), 351-358. doi: 10. 1080/02687038808248937.
42. Mirman, D., Strauss, T., Dixon, J., & Magnuson, J. S. (2010). Effect of representational distance between meanings on recognition of ambiguous spoken words. Cognitive Science, 34(1), 161-173. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1551-6709. 2009. 01069. x. Effect.
43. Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R 2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. (R. B. O'Hara, Ed.)Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4(2), 133-142. doi: 10. 1111/j. 2041-210x. 2012. 00261. x.
44. Norris, D., & McQueen, J. M. (2000). Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(3), 299-325. doi: 10. 1017/S0140525X00003241.
45. Norris, D., & McQueen, J. M. (2008). Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological review, 115(2), 357-95. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 115. 2. 357.
46. Pisoni, D. B. (1996). Word identification in noise. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(6), 681-688. doi: 10. 1080/016909696387097.
47. R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www. R-project. org.
48. Reicher, G. M. (1969). Perceptual recognition as a function of meaninfulness of stimulus material. Journal of experimental psychology, 81(2), 275-80. doi: 10. 1037/h0027768.
49. Shapiro, K. A., Pascual-Leone, A., Mottaghy, F. M., Gangitano, M., & Caramazza, A. (2001). Grammatical distinctions in the left frontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13(6), 713-20. doi: 10. 1162/08989290152541386.
50. Sommers, M. S. (1996). The structural organization of the mental lexicon and its contribution to age-related declines in spoken-word recognition. Psychology & Aging, 11(2), 333-41. doi: 10. 1037/0882-7974. 11. 2. 333.
51. Strand, J. F. (2013). Phi-square Lexical Competition Database (Phi-Lex): An online tool for quantifying auditory and visual lexical competition. Behavior Research Methods, (1). doi: 10. 3758/s13428-013-0356-8.
52. Strand, J. F., & Sommers, M. S. (2011). Sizing up the competition: Quantifying the influence of the mental lexicon on auditory and visual spoken word recognition. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(3), 1663. doi: 10. 1121/1. 3613930.
53. Strauss, T. J., Harris, H. D., & Magnuson, J. S. (2007). jTRACE: A reimplementation and extension of the TRACE model of speech perception and spoken word recognition. Behavior Research Methods, 39(1), 19-30. doi: 10. 3758/BF03192840.
54. van Berkum, J. J., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(3), 443-67. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 31. 3. 443.
55. Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Druks, J., Barber, H., & Cappa, S. F. (2011). Nouns and verbs in the brain: a review of behavioural, electrophysiological, neuropsychological and imaging studies. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 35(3), 407-26. doi: 10. 1016/j. neubiorev. 2010. 04. 007.
56. Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (2004). A Web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 481-487. doi: 10. 3758/BF03195594.
57. Vosse, T., & Kempen, G. (2000). Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75(2), 105-143. doi: 10. 1016/S0010-0277(00)00063-9.
58. Warren, R. M. (1970). Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds. Science, 167(3917), 392-393. doi: 10. 1126/science. 167. 3917. 392.
59. Weber, A., & Scharenborg, O. (2012). Models of spoken-word recognition. WIREs Cognitive Science, 3(3), 387-401. doi: 10. 1002/wcs. 1178.
60. Zwitserlood, P. (1989). The locus of the effects of sentential-semantic context in spoken-word processing. Cognition, 32(1), 25-64. doi: 10. 1016/0010-0277(89)90013-9.