The ageing neighbourhood: Phonological density in naming

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 326-344

  Gordon, Jean K ^a   Kurczek, Jake C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

Ageing; Phonological neighbourhood density; Word retrieval

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; AGING; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHONEME; PHONETICS; PREDICTION; RESPONSE TIME; SCORING SYSTEM; TASK PERFORMANCE; VERY ELDERLY; WORD RECOGNITION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84911992468     PISSN: 23273798     EISSN: 23273801     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2013.837495     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Abrams, L., Trunk, D. L., & Merrill, L. A. (2007). Why a superman cannot help a tsunami: Activation of grammatical class influences resolutions of young and older adults’ tip-of-the-tongue states. Psychology and Aging, 22, 835-845. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.22.4.835
2. Au, R., Joung, P., Nicholas, M., Obler, L. K., Kaas, R., & Albert, M. L. (1995). Naming ability across the adult life span. Aging and Cognition, 2, 300-311. doi:10.1080/13825589508 256605
3. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
4. 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, 390-412. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
5. Baus, C., Costa, A., & Carreiras, M. (2008). Neighborhood density and frequency effects in speech production: A case for interactivity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 866-888. doi:10.1080/01690960801962372
6. Best, W. M. (1995). A reverse length effect in dysphasic naming: When elephant is easier than ant. Cortex, 31, 637-652. doi:10.1016/S0010-9452(13)80017-2
7. Brown, A. S. (1991). A review of the tip-of-the-tongue experience. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 204-223. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.204
8. Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977-990. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
9. Burke, D. M., Locantore, J. K., Austin, A. A., & Chae, B., (2004). Cherry pit primes Brad Pitt: Homophone priming effects on young and older adults’ production of proper names. Psychological Science, 15(3), 164-170. doi:10.1111/ j.0956-7976.2004.01503004.x
10. Burke, D. M., MacKay, D. G., Worthey, J. S., & Wade, E. (1991). On the tip of the tongue: What causes word-finding failures in younger and older adults. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 542-579. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(91)90026-G
11. Burke, D. M., & Shafto, M. A., (2004). Aging and language production. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(1), 21-24. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01301006.x
12. Chan, A. H. D., Chan, K. Y., & Vitevitch, M. S. (2010). Network structure influences speech production. Cognitive Science, 34, 685-697. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01100.x
13. Chan, K. Y., & Vitevitch, M. S. (2009). The influence of the phonological neighborhood clustering-coefficient on spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 35, 1934-1949. doi:10. 1037/a0016902
14. Chen, Q., & Mirman, D. (2012). Competition and cooperation among similar representations: Toward a unified account of facilitative and inhibitory effects of lexical neighbors. Psychological Review, 119, 417-430. doi:10.1037/a00 27175
15. Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335-359. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80014-3
16. Connor, L. T., Spiro, A., Obler, L. K., & Albert, M. L. (2004). Change in object naming ability during adulthood. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 59B, P203-P209. doi:10.1093/geronb/59.5.P203
17. Dahlgren, D. J. (1998). Impact of knowledge and age on tip-of-the-tongue rates. Experimental Aging Research, 24(2), 139-153. doi:10.1080/036107398244283
18. Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading activation theory of retrieval in speech production. Psychological Review, 93, 283-321. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283
19. Dell, G. S., & Gordon, J. K. (2003). Neighbors in the lexicon: Friends or foes? In N. O. Schiller & A. S. Meyer (Eds.), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities (Vol. 6, pp. 9-37). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
20. Dell, G. S., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Saffran, E. M., & Gagnon, D. A. (1997). Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychological Review, 104, 801-838. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.4.801
21. Dirks, D. D., Takayanagi, S., Moshfegh, A., Noffsinger, P. D., & Fausti, S. A. (2001). Examination of the neighborhood activation theory in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. Ear and Hearing, 22(1), 1-13. doi:10.1097/00003446-20010 2000-00001
22. Druks, J., & Masterson, J. (2000). An object and action naming battery. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
23. Evrard, M. (2002). Ageing and lexical access to common and proper names in picture naming. Brain and Language, 81(1-3), 174-179. doi:10.1006/brln.2001.2515
24. Farrell, M. T., & Abrams, L. (2011). Tip-of-the-tongue states reveal age differences in the syllable frequency effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 277-285. doi:10.1037/a0021328
25. Feyereisen, P. (1997). A meta-analytic procedure shows an age-related decline in picture naming: Comments on Goulet, Ska, and Kahn (1994). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 1328-1333. Received from http://jslhr.asha.org/cgi/reprint/40/6/1328
26. Francis, W. N., & Kuçera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
27. Frank, A. F., Tanenhaus, M. K., Aslin, R. N., & Salverda, A. P. (2007). Frequency, neighborhood density, and phonological similarity effects in picture naming: An artificial lexicon study. Paper presented at the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX.
28. Garlock, V. M., Walley, A. C., & Metsala, J. L. (2001). Age-of-acquisition, word frequency, and neighborhood density effects on spoken word recognition by children and adults. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 468-492. doi:10.1006/jmla.2000.2784
29. Goldrick, M., Folk, J. R., & Rapp, B. (2010). Mrs. Malaprop’s neighborhood: Using word errors to reveal neighborhood structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(2), 113-134. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.11.008
30. Gordon, J. K. (2002). Phonological neighborhood effects in aphasic speech errors: Spontaneous and structured contexts. Brain and Language, 82(2), 113-145. doi:10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00001-9
31. Gordon, J. K., & Dell, G. S. (2001). Phonological neighborhood effects: Evidence from aphasia and connectionist modeling. Brain and Language, 79(1), 21-23. doi:10.1006/brln.2001.2574
32. Harley, T. A., & Bown, H. E. (1998). What causes a tip-of-the-tongue state? Evidence for lexical neighbourhood effects in speech production. British Journal of Psychology, 89(1), 151-174. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1998.tb02677.x
33. Howard, D., Nickels, L., Coltheart, M., & Cole-Virtue, J. (2006). Cumulative semantic inhibition in picture naming: Experimental and computational studies. Cognition, 100, 464-482. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.02.006
34. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434-446. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
35. James, L. E., & Burke, D. M. (2000). Phonological priming effects on word retrieval and tip-of-the-tongue experiences in young and older adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 26, 1378-1391. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.26.6.1378
36. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Mineola, NY: Dover.
37. Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, B. (1978). The Boston naming test. Philadelphia, PA: Lea and Febiger.
38. Kittredge, A. K., Dell, G. S., Verkuilen, J., & Schwartz, M. S. (2008). Where is the effect of frequency in word production? Insights from aphasic picture-naming errors. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25, 463-492. doi:10.1080/02643290701674851
39. Kuçera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
40. Lagrone, S., & Spieler, D. H. (2006). Lexical competition and encoding in young and older speakers. Psychology and Aging, 21, 804-809. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.21.4.804
41. Landauer, T. K., & Streeter, L. A. (1973). Structural differences between common and rare words: Failure of equivalence assumptions for theories of word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(2), 119-131. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80001-5
42. Luce, P. A., & Large, N. R. (2001). Phonotactics, density, and entropy in spoken word recognition. Language and Cog-nitive Processes, 16, 565-581. doi:10.1080/01690960143 000137
43. 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
44. Middleton, E. L., & Schwartz, M. F. (2010). Density pervades: An analysis of phonological neighborhood density effects in aphasic speakers with different types of naming impairment. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 27, 401-427. doi:10.1080/02643294.2011.570325
45. Mirman, D. (2011). Effects of near and distant semantic neighbors on word production. Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 11(1), 32-43. doi:10.3758/s134 15-010-0009-7
46. Mirman, D., Kittredge, A. K., & Dell, G. S. (2010). Effects of near and distant phonological neighbors on picture naming. Paper presented at the Cognitive Science Society, Port-land, OR.
47. Mortensen, L., Meyer, A. S., & Humphrey, G. W. (2006). Age-related effects on speech production: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 238-290. doi:10.1080/016909 60444000278
48. Newman, R. S., & German, D. J. (2005). Life span effects of lexical factors on oral naming. Language and Speech, 48(2), 123-156. doi:10.1177/00238309050480020101
49. Oppenheim, G. M., Dell, G. S., & Schwartz, M. S. (2010). The dark side of incremental learning: A model of cumulative semantic interference during lexical access in speech production. Cognition, 114, 227-252. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.09.007
50. Perez, M. (2007). Age of acquisition persists as the main factor in picture naming when cumulative word frequency and frequency trajectory are controlled. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 60(1), 32-42. doi:10.1080/17470210600577423
51. Roach, A., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Grewal, R. S., & Brecher, A. (1996). The Philadelphia Naming Test: Scoring and rationale. Clinical Aphasiology, 24, 121-133. Received from: http://aphasiology.pitt.edu/archive/00000215/
52. Rossion, B., & Pourtois, G. (2004). Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart’s object set: The role of surface detail in basic-level object recognition. Perception, 33, 217-236. doi:10.10 68/p5117
53. Sadat, J., Martin, C. D., Costa, A., & Alario, F.X. (in press). Reconciling phonological neighborhood effects in speech production through single trial analysis.
54. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002a). E-Prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools
55. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002b). E-Prime reference guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
56. Spieler, D. H., & Balota, D. A. (2000). Factors influencing word naming in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 15, 225-231. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.15.2.225
57. Storkel, H. L. (2004). Methods for minimizing the confounding effects of word length in the analysis of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1454-1468. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2004/108)
58. Szekely, A., & Bates, E. (2000). Objective visual complexity as a variable in studies of picture naming. Center for Research in Language Newsletter, 12(2), 1-33. Received from: http://crl.ucsd.edu/newsletter/12-2/article.html
59. R Development Core Team, (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
60. Taler, V., Aaron, G. P., Steinmetz, L. G., & Pisoni, D. B. (2010). Lexical neighborhood density effects on spoken word recognition and production in healthy aging. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 65B, 551-560. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbq039
61. Verhaeghen, P. (2003). Aging and vocabulary scores: A meta analysis. Psychology and Aging, 18, 332-339. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.18.2.332
62. Vitevitch, M. S. (1997). The neighborhood characteristics of malapropisms. Language and Speech, 40, 211-228.
63. Vitevitch, M. S. (2002). The influence of phonological similarity neighbors on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 735-747. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.735
64. Vitevitch, M. S. (2003). The influence of sublexical and lexical representations on the processing of spoken words in English. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 17, 487-499. doi:10.1080/0269920031000107541
65. Vitevitch, M. S. (2007). The spread of the phonological neighborhood influences spoken word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 35(1), 166-175. doi:10.3758/BF03195952
66. Vitevitch, M. S., Armbruster, J., & Chu, S. (2004). Sublexical and lexical representations in speech production: Effects of phonotactic probability and onset density. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 514-529. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.514
67. Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1998). When words compete: Levels of processing in perception of spoken words. Psychological Science, 9, 325-329. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00064
68. Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1999). Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 374-408. doi:10. 1006/jmla.1998.2618
69. 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, 481-487. doi:10.3758/BF03195594
70. Vitevitch, M. S., Luce, P. A., Pisoni, D. B., & Auer, E. T. (1999). Phonotactics, neighborhood activation, and lexical access for spoken words. Brain and Language, 68, 306-311. doi:10.1006/brln.1999.2116
71. Vitevitch, M. S., & Rodriguez, E. (2005). Neighborhood density effects in spoken word recognition in Spanish. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 3(1), 64-73. doi:10.1080/14769670400027332
72. Vitevitch, M. S., & Sommers, M. S. (2003). The facilitative influence of phonological similarity and neighborhood frequency in speech production in younger and older adults. Memory & Cognition, 31, 491-504. doi:10.3758/BF0319 6091
73. Vitevitch, M. S., & Stamer, M. K. (2006). The curious case of competition in Spanish speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 760-770. doi:10.1080/01690960500287196
74. Vitevitch, M. S., & Stamer, M. K. (2009). The influence of neighborhood density (and neighborhood frequency) in Spanish speech production: A follow-up report. Spoken Language Laboratory Technical Report. University of Kansas.
75. Vitevitch, M. S., Stamer, M. K., & Sereno, J. A. (2008). Word length and lexical competition: Longer is the same as shorter. Language and Speech, 51, 361-383. doi:10.1177/002383090 8099070
76. Wagenmakers, E.-J., Krypotos, A.-M., Criss, A. H., & Iverson, G. (2012). On the interpretation of removable interactions: A survey of the field 33 years after Loftus. Memory & Cognition, 40(2), 145-160. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0158-0
77. Wheeldon, L. (2003). Inhibitory form priming of spoken word production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(1), 81-109. doi:10.1080/01690960143000470