Many neighborhoods: Phonological and perceptual neighborhood density in lexical production and perception

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 89, Issue , 2016, Pages 162-178

  Gahl, Susanne ^a   Strand, Julia F ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b CARLETON COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Lexical competition; Perceptual confusability; Phonological neighborhood density; Spoken word production; Word duration; Word identification

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NEIGHBORHOOD; PHONEME; THINKING; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 84954306633     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.12.006     Document Type: Article

References (112)

1. Allopenna P.D., Magnuson J.S., Tanenhaus M.K. Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language 1998, 38:419-439.
2. Arnold J.E., Kahn J.M., Pancani G.C. Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2012, 19:505-512.
3. Aylett, M. (2000). Stochastic suprasegmentals: Relationships between redundancy, prosodic structure and care of articulation in spontaneous speech (Ph.D.). Edinburgh. Retrieved from <>. http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/matthewa/thesissum.html.
4. Aylett M., Turk A. The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech 2004, 47:31-56.
5. Aylett M., Turk A. Language redundancy predicts syllabic duration and the spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2006, 119:3048-3058.
6. Baayen, H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM).
7. Baese-Berk M., Goldrick M. Mechanisms of interaction in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes 2009, 24:527-554.
8. Balota D.A., Boland J.E., Shields L.W. Priming in pronunciation: Beyond pattern recognition and onset latency. Journal of Memory and Language 1989, 28:14-36.
9. Balota D.A., Yap M.J., Cortese M.J., Hutchison K.A., Kessler B., Loftis B., Treiman R. The English Lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods 2007, 39:445-459.
10. Barr D., Levy R., Scheepers C., Tily H.J. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 2013, 68(3):255-278.
11. Bates, D., Maechler, M. (2010). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-33. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
12. Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H., (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. arxiv:1506.04967.
13. Bell A., Brenier J.M., Gregory M., Girand C., Jurafsky D. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 2009, 60:92-111.
14. Bent T., Bradlow A.R., Smith B.L. Production and perception of temporal patterns in native and non-native speech. Phonetica 2008, 65:131-147.
15. Brysbaert M., New B. Moving beyond Kučera 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 2009, 41:977-990.
16. Buz, E., & Jaeger, T. F. (2013). Comparing measures of word confusability and their effect on speech production. Poster presented at CUNY conference on sentence processing.
17. Buz E., Jaeger T.F. The (in) dependence of articulation and lexical planning during isolated word production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 2015, 1-21.
18. Chen Q., Mirman D. Competition and cooperation among similar representations: Toward a unified account of facilitative and inhibitory effects of lexical neighbors. Psychological Review 2012, 119:417-430.
19. Chen Q., Mirman D. Interaction between phonological and semantic representations: Time matters. Cognitive Science 2015, 39:538-558. 10.1111/cogs.12156.
20. Cholin J., Levelt W.J., Schiller N.O. Effects of syllable frequency in speech production. Cognition 2006, 99:205-235.
21. Cluff M.S., Luce P.A. Similarity neighborhoods of spoken two-syllable words: Retroactive effects on multiple activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1990, 16:551-563.
22. Conrad R., Hull A.J. Information, acoustic confusion and memory span. British Journal of Psychology 1964, 55:429-432.
23. Crump M.J., Logan G.D. Hierarchical control and skilled typing: Evidence for word-level control over the execution of individual keystrokes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2010, 36:1369-1380.
24. Crystal T.H., House A.S. Segmental durations in connected-speech signals: Current results. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1988, 83:1553-1573.
25. Dell G.S. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review 1986, 93:283-321.
26. Dell G.S., Gordon J.K. Neighbors in the lexicon: Friends or foes?. Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production 2003, 9-47. Mouton De Gruyter, New York. N.O. Schiller, A.S. Meyer (Eds.).
27. Dell G.S., Schwartz M.F., Martin N., Saffran E.M., Gagnon D.A. Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychological Review 1997, 104:801-838.
28. Diehl R.L., Kluender K.R. On the objects of speech perception. Ecological Psychology 1989, 1:121-144.
29. Diehl R.L., Lotto A.J., Holt L.L. Speech perception. Annual Review of Psychology 2004, 55:149-179.
30. Ernestus M. Acoustic reduction and the roles of abstractions and exemplars in speech processing. Lingua 2014, 142:27-41.
31. Farnetani E., Recasens D. Coarticulation and connected speech processes. The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences 1997, 371-404.
32. Fink A., Goldrick M. The influence of word retrieval and planning on phonetic variation: Implications for exemplar models. Linguistics Vanguard 2015, 10.1515/lingvan-2015-1003.
33. Flemming, E. (2010). Modeling listeners: Comments on Pluymaekers et al. and Scarborough. In C. Fougeron, B. Kühnert, M. D'Imperio & N. Vallée (Eds.), Laboratory phonology (Vol. 10, pp. 587-606). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
34. Fosler-Lussier E., Morgan N. Effects of speaking rate and word predictability on conversational pronunciations. Speech Communication 1999, 29:137-158.
35. Fox N.P., Reilly M., Blumstein S.E. Phonological neighborhood competition affects spoken word production irrespective of sentential context. Journal of Memory and Language 2015, 83:97-117.
36. Frauenfelder U.H., Baayen H., Hellwig F.M., Schreuder R. Neighborhood density and frequency across languages and modalities. Journal of Memory and Language 1993, 32:781-804.
37. Fricke, Baese-Berk & Goldrick (in press). Dimensions of similarity in the mental lexicon. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience.
38. Gahl S. "Time" and "thyme" are not homophones: Word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 2008, 84:474-496.
39. Gahl S. Lexical competition in vowel articulation revisited: Vowel dispersion in the Easy/Hard database. Journal of Phonetics 2015, 49:96-116.
40. Gahl S., Yao Y., Johnson K. Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language 2012, 66:789-806.
41. Galantucci B., Fowler C.A., Turvey M.T. The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2006, 13:361-377.
42. Gelman A., Hill J. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models 2006, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
43. Goldinger S.D. Auditory lexical decision. Language and Cognitive Processes 1996, 11:559-568. 10.1080/016909696386944.
44. Goldinger S.D., Luce P.A., Pisoni D.B. Priming lexical neighbors of spoken words: Effects of competition and inhibition. Journal of Memory and Language 1989, 28:501-518.
45. Goldrick M., Baker H.R., Murphy A., Baese-Berk M. Interaction and representational integration: Evidence from speech errors. Cognition 2011, 121:58-72.
46. Goldrick M., Folk J.R., Rapp B. Mrs. Malaprop's neighborhood: Using word errors to reveal neighborhood structure. Journal of Memory and Language 2010, 62:113-134.
47. Goldrick M., Vaughn C., Murphy A. The effects of lexical neighbors on stop consonant articulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2013, 134:EL172-EL177.
48. Gordon J.K. Phonological neighborhood effects in aphasic speech errors: Spontaneous and structured contexts. Brain and Language 2002, 82:113-145.
49. Gordon J. The aging neighborhood: Phonological density in naming. Language and Cognitive Processes 2014, 29:326-344.
50. Greenberg, S. (1998). Speaking in shorthand - A syllable-centric perspective for understanding pronunciation variation. Paper presented at the ESCA workshop on modeling pronunciation variation for automatic speech recognition, Kekrade (The Netherlands).
51. Gupta P., MacWhinney B. Is the articulatory loop articulatory or auditory? Reexamining the effects of concurrent articulation on immediate serial recall. Journal of Memory and Language 1995, 34:63-88.
52. Hale J. The information conveyed by words in sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2003, 32(2):101-123.
53. Harley T.A., Bown H.E. What causes a tip-of-the-tongue state? Evidence for lexical neighbourhood effects in speech production. British Journal of Psychology 1998, 89:151-174.
54. Heller J.R., Goldrick M. Erratum to: Grammatical constraints on phonological encoding in speech production. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2015, 22:1475.
55. Heller J.R., Goldrick M. Grammatical constraints on phonological encoding in speech production. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2014, 21:1576-1582.
56. Hickok G. Computational neuroanatomy of speech production. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2012, 13:135-145.
57. Iverson P., Bernstein L.E., Auer E.T. Modeling the interaction of phonemic intelligibility and lexical structure in audiovisual word recognition. Speech Communication 1998, 26:45-63.
58. Jaeger, T. F., & Levy, R. P. (2006). Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 849-856).
59. Johnson K. Massive reduction in conversational American English. Spontaneous speech: Data and analysis. Proceedings of the 1st session of the 10th international symposium 2004, 29-54. The National International Institute for Japanese Language, Tokyo. K. Yoneyama, K. Maekawa (Eds.).
60. Jones D.M., Beaman P., Macken W.J. The object-oriented episodic record model. Models of short-term memory 1996, 209-238. Psychology Press, Hove, UK. S.E. Gathercole (Ed.).
61. Jurafsky D. Probabilistic modeling in Psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production. Probabilistic Linguistics 2003, 39-95. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. R. Bod, J. Hay, S. Jannedy (Eds.).
62. Kandel S., Peereman R., Ghimenton A. Further evidence for the interaction of central and peripheral processes: The impact of double letters in writing English words. Frontiers in Psychology 2013, 4.
63. Kandel S., Peereman R., Grosjacques G., Fayol M. For a psycholinguistic model of handwriting production: Testing the syllable-bigram controversy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2011, 37:1310.
64. Kawamoto A.H., Liu Q., Mura K., Sanchez A. Articulatory preparation in the delayed naming task. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 58:347-365.
65. Keune K., Ernestus M., Hout R.v., Baayen H. Variation in Dutch: From written MOGELIJK to spoken MOK. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2005, 1:183-223.
66. Kuperman V., Ernestus M., Baayen H. Frequency distributions of uniphones, diphones, and triphones in spontaneous speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2008, 124:3897-3908.
67. Kuperman V., Pluymaekers M., Ernestus M., Baayen H. Morphological predictability and acoustic duration of interfixes in Dutch compounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2007, 121:2261-2271.
68. Lam T.Q., Watson D.G. Repetition is easy: Why repeated referents have reduced prominence. Memory & Cognition 2010, 38:1137-1146.
69. Levelt W.J.M., Roelofs A., Meyer A.S. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1999, 22:1-75.
70. Levelt W.J., Schriefers H., Vorberg D., Meyer A.S., Pechmann T., Havinga J. The time course of lexical access in speech production: A study of picture naming. Psychological Review 1991, 98:122.
71. Levelt W.J.M., Wheeldon L. Do speakers have access to a mental syllabary?. Cognition 1994, 50:239-269.
72. Levy R. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 2008, 106:1126-1177.
73. Liberman A.M., Mattingly I.G. The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition 1985, 21:1-36.
74. Lindblom B. Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. Speech production and speech modeling 1990, 403-439. Kluwer, Dordrecht. W.J. Hardcastle, A. Marchal (Eds.).
75. Luce P.A., Pisoni D.B. Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear & Hearing 1998, 19:1-36.
76. Luce P.A., Pisoni D.B., Goldinger S.D. Similarity neighborhoods of spoken words. Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives 1990, 122-147. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, US. G.T.M. Altmann (Ed.).
77. Magnuson J.S., Dixon J.A., Tanenhaus M.K., Aslin R.N. The dynamics of lexical competition during spoken word recognition. Cognitive Science 2007, 31:133-156.
78. Marian V., Blumenfeld H.K. Phonological neighborhood density guides: Lexical access in native and non-native language production. Journal of Social and Ecological Boundaries 2006, 2:3-35.
79. Mousikou P., Rastle K. Lexical frequency effects on articulation: A comparison of picture naming and reading aloud. Frontiers in Psychology 2015, 6.
80. Munson B. Lexical access, lexical representation, and vowel production. Laboratory phonology 9: Phonology and phonetics 2007, 201-227. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. J. Cole, J.I. Hualde (Eds.).
81. Munson B., Solomon N.P. The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation. Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2004, 47:1048-1058.
82. Page M.P., Madge A., Cumming N., Norris D.G. Speech errors and the phonological similarity effect in short-term memory: Evidence suggesting a common locus. Journal of Memory and Language 2007, 56:49-64.
83. Pate J.K., Goldwater S. Talkers account for listener and channel characteristics to communicate efficiently. Journal of Memory and Language 2015, 78:1-17.
84. Peramunage D., Blumstein S.E., Myers E.B., Goldrick M., Baese-Berk M. Phonological neighborhood effects in spoken word production: An fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2010, 23:593-603.
85. Peterson G.E., Lehiste I. Duration of syllable nuclei in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1960, 32:693-703.
86. Pitt, M. A., Dilley, L., Johnson, K., Kiesling, S., Raymond, W., Hume, E., & Fosler-Lussier, E. (2007). Buckeye corpus of conversational speech (2nd release) <>. http://www.buckeyecorpus.osu.edu.
87. Pluymaekers M., Ernestus M., Baayen H. Articulatory planning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica 2005, 62:146-159.
88. Roux S., McKeeff T.J., Grosjacques G., Afonso O., Kandel S. The interaction between central and peripheral processes in handwriting production. Cognition 2013, 127:235-241.
89. Sadat J., Martin C.D., Costa A. Reconciling phonological neighborhood effects in speech production through single trial analysis. Cognitive Psychology 2014, 68:33-58.
90. Scarborough, R. A. (2004). Degree of coarticulation and lexical confusability. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 29th meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.
91. Scarborough R.A. Neighborhood-conditioned patterns in phonetic detail: Relating coarticulation and hyperarticulation. Journal of Phonetics 2013, 41:491-508.
92. Scarborough R.A. Lexical and contextual predictability: Confluent effects on the production of vowels. Laboratory phonology 2010, 557-586. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, New York, 10. L. Goldstein, D.H. Whalen, C.T. Best (Eds.).
93. Sevald C., Dell G.S. The sequential cuing effect in speech production. Cognition 1994, 58:91-127.
94. Seyfarth S. Word informativity influences acoustic duration: Effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation. Cognition 2014, 133:140-155.
95. Slote, J., & Strand, J. (2015). Conducting spoken word recognition research online: Validation and a new timing method. Behavior Research Methods, in press. doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0599-7.
96. Strand J. Phi-square Lexical Competition Database (Phi-Lex): An online tool for quantifying auditory and visual lexical competition. Behavior Research Methods 2014, 46:148-158. 10.3758/s13428-013-0356-8.
97. Strand J., Sommers M. Sizing up the competition: Quantifying the influence of the mental lexicon on auditory and visual spoken word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2011, 130:1663-1672.
98. Tily H., Kuperman V. Rational phonological lengthening in spoken Dutch. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 2012, 132:3935-3940.
99. Umeda N. Consonant duration in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1977, 61:846-858.
100. van Son, R. J. J. H., & Pols, L. C. W. (2003). Information structure and efficiency in speech production. Paper presented at the 2003 Eurospeech conference, Geneva, Switzerland.
101. Vitevitch M.S. The neighborhood characteristics of malapropisms. Language and Speech 1997, 40:211-228.
102. Vitevitch M.S. The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2002, 28:735-747.
103. Vitevitch M.S. The spread of the phonological neighborhood influences spoken word recognition. Memory & Cognition 2007, 35:166-175.
104. Vitevitch M.S., Armbrüster J., Chu S. Sublexical and lexical representations in speech production: Effects of phonotactic probability and onset density. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2004, 30:514.
105. Vitevitch M.S., Luce P.A. When words compete: Levels of processing in perception of spoken words. Psychological Science 1998, 9:325-329.
106. Vitevitch M.S., Luce P.A. A web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 2004, 36:481-487.
107. Vitevitch M.S., Luce P.A. Increases in phonotactic probability facilitate spoken nonword repetition. Journal of Memory and Language 2005, 52:193-204.
108. Vitevitch M.S., Luce P.A. Phonological neighborhood effects in spoken word perception and production. Annual Review of Linguistics 2016, 2. 10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124832.
109. Vitevitch M.S., Sommers M.S. The facilitative influence of phonological similarity and neighborhood frequency in speech production in younger and older adults. Memory & Cognition 2003, 31:491-504.
110. Wilson M. The case for sensorimotor coding in working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2001, 8:44-57.
111. Wright C.E. Duration differences between rare and common words and their implications for the interpretation of word frequency effects. Memory & Cognition 1979, 7:411-419.
112. Yiu L.K., Watson D.G. When overlap leads to competition: Effects of phonological encoding on word duration. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2015, 1-8.