Phonological Neighborhood Effects in Spoken Word Perception and Production

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volumn 2, Issue , 2016, Pages 75-94

  Vitevitch, Michael S ^a   Luce, Paul A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

clustering coefficient; neighborhood density; network science; phonotactic probability; spoken word production; spoken word recognition

Indexed keywords

EID: 84987719037     PISSN: 23339683     EISSN: 23339691     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-124832     Document Type: Review

References (96)

1. Albright A. 2007. Gradient phonological acceptability as a grammatical effect.Work. pap., Dep. Linguist., MIT
2. Allopenna PD, Magnuson JS, Tanenhaus MK. 1998. Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: evidence for continuous mapping models. J. Mem. Lang. 38:419-39
3. Arbesman S, Strogatz SH, Vitevitch MS. 2010. Comparative analysis of networks of phonologically similar words in English and Spanish. Entropy 12:327-37
4. Bailey T, Hahn U. 2001. Determinants of wordlikeness: phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods? J. Mem. Lang. 44:568-91
5. Barabási AL. 2009. Scale-free networks: a decade and beyond. Science 325:412-13
6. BatesE, D'Amico S, Jacobsen T, Szekely A, AndonovaE, et al. 2003. Timed picture naming in seven languages. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 10:344-80
7. Bond ZS. 1999. Slips of the Ear: Errors in the Perception of Casual Conversation. New York: Academic
8. Brown R, McNeill D. 1966. The "tip of the tongue" phenomenon. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 5:325-37
9. Burke DM, MacKay DG, Worthley JS, Wade E. 1991. On the tip of the tongue: What causes word finding problems in young and older adults? J. Mem. Lang. 30:542-79
10. Chan KY, Vitevitch MS. 2009. The influence of the phonological neighborhood clustering-coefficient on spoken word recognition. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 35:1934-49
11. Chan KY, Vitevitch MS. 2010. Network structure influences speech production. Cogn. Sci. 34:685-97
12. Charles-Luce J, Luce PA. 1990. Some structural properties of words in young children's lexicons. J. Child Lang. 17:205-15
13. Charles-Luce J, Luce PA. 1995. An examination of similarity neighbourhoods in young children's receptive vocabularies. J. Child Lang. 22:727-35
14. Chen Q, Mirman D. 2012. Competition and cooperation among similar representations: toward a unified account of facilitative and inhibitory effects of lexical neighbors. Psychol. Rev. 199:417-30
15. Chen HC, Vaid J, Boas DA, Bortfeld H. 2011. Examining the phonological neighborhood density effect using near infrared spectroscopy. Hum. Brain Mapp. 32:1363-70
16. Cluff M, Luce PA. 1990. Similarity neighborhoods of spoken two-syllable words: retroactive effects on multiple activation. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 16:551-63
17. Cutler A. 1981. Making up materials is a confounded nuisance, or: Will we able to run any psycholinguistic experiments at all in 1990? Cognition 10:65-70
18. Cutler A, Norris D. 1988. The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 14:113-21
19. Dell GS. 1986. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychol. Rev. 93:283-321
20. Dell GS. 1988. The retrieval of phonological forms in production: tests of predictions from a connectionist model. J. Mem. Lang. 27:124-42
21. Dell GS, Gordon JK. 2003. Neighbors in the lexicon: friends or foes? In Phonetics and Phonology in Language Comprehension and Production:Differences and Similarities, ed.NOSchiller, AS Meyer, pp. 9-37. New York: de Gruyter
22. Dirks DD, Takayanagi S, Moshfegh A, Noffsinger PD, Fausti SA. 2001. Examination of the neighborhood activation theory in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear. 22:1-13
23. Dufour S, Brunelliere A, Frauenfelder UH. 2012. Tracking the time course of word-frequency effects in spoken word recognition with event-related potentials. Cogn. Sci. 37:489-507
24. Dufour S, Frauenfelder UH. 2010. Phonological neighbourhood effects in French spoken-word recognition. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 63:226-38
25. Frisch SA, Large NR, Pisoni DB. 2000. Perception of wordlikeness: effects of segment probability and length on the processing of nonwords. J. Mem. Lang. 42:481-96
26. German DJ, Newman RS. 2004. The impact of lexical factors on children's word-finding errors. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 47:624-36
27. Goldinger SD, Luce PA, Pisoni DB. 1989. Priming lexical neighbors of spoken words: effects of competition and inhibition. J. Mem. Lang. 28:501-18
28. Gordon JK. 2002. Phonological neighborhood effects in aphasic speech errors: spontaneous and structured contexts. Brain Lang. 82:113-45
29. Gordon JK, Dell GS. 2001. Phonological neighborhood effects: evidence from aphasia and connectionist models. Brain Lang. 79:21-23
30. Greenberg JH, Jenkins JJ. 1964. Studies in the psychological correlates of the sound system of American English. Word 20:157-77
31. Hahn U, Bailey TM. 2005. What makes words sound similar? Cognition 97:227-67
32. Harley TA, Bown HE. 1998. What causes a tip-of-the-tongue state? Evidence for lexical neighbourhood effects in speech production. Br. J. Psychol. 89:151-74
33. Hills TT, Maouene M, Maouene J, Sheya A, Smith L. 2009. Longitudinal analysis of early semantic networks: preferential attachment or preferential acquisition? Psychol. Sci. 20:729-39
34. Hoover JR, Storkel HL, Rice ML. 2012. The interface between neighborhood density and optional infinitives: normal development and specific language impairment. J. Child Lang. 39:835-62
35. Hunter CR. 2013. Early effects of neighborhood density and phonotactic probability of spoken words on event-related potentials. Brain Lang. 127:462-74
36. James LE, Burke DM. 2000. Phonological priming effects on word retrieval and tip-of-the-tongue experiences in young and older adults. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 26:1378-91
37. Kučera H, Francis WN. 1967. Computational Analysis of Present Day American English. Providence, RI: Brown Univ. Press
38. Landauer TK, Streeter LA. 1973. Structural differences between common and rare words: failure of equivalence assumptions for theories of word recognition. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 12:119-31
39. Lemhöfer K, Dijkstra T, Schriefers H, Baayen RH, Grainger J, Zwisterlood P. 2008. Native language influences on word recognition in a second language: a megastudy. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 34:12-31
40. Levelt WJM, Roelofs A, Meyer AS. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behav. Brain Sci. 22:1-75
41. Luce PA. 1986. A computational analysis of uniqueness points in auditory word recognition. Percept. Psychophys. 39:155-58
42. Luce PA, Goldinger SD, Auer ET Jr, Vitevitch MS. 2000. Phonetic priming, neighborhood activation, and PARSYN. Percept. Psychophys. 62:615-25
43. Luce PA, Large NR. 2001. Phonotactics, density and entropy in spoken word recognition. Lang. Cogn. Process. 16:565-81
44. Luce PA, Pisoni DB. 1987. Speech perception: new directions in research, theory, and applications. In Human Communication and Its Disorders, A Review, Vol. 1, ed. HWinitz, pp. 1-87. Westport, CT: Ablex
45. Luce PA, Pisoni DB. 1998. Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood activationmodel. Ear Hear. 19:1-36
46. Luce RD. 1961. A choice theory analysis of similarity judgments. Psychometrika 26:151-63
47. Marian V, Bartolotti J, Chabal S, Shook A. 2012. CLEARPOND: Cross-Linguistic Easy-Access Resource for Phonological and Orthographic Neighborhood Densities. PLOS ONE 7:e43230
48. Marslen-Wilson WD. 1987. Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition 25:71-102
49. Marslen-Wilson WD, Welsh A. 1978. Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cogn. Psychol. 10:29-63
50. McClelland JL, Elman JL. 1986. The TRACE model of speech perception. Cogn. Psychol. 18:1-86
51. Mehler J, Dommergues JY, Frauenfelder U, Segui J. 1981. The syllable's role in speech segmentation. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 20:298-305
52. Morton J. 1969. Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychol. Rev. 76:165-78
53. Munson B, Solomon NP. 2004. The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 47:1048-58
54. Neal ZP. 2013. The Connected City: How Networks Are Shaping the Modern Metropolis. New York: Routledge
55. Newman RS, German DJ. 2002. Effects of lexical factors on lexical access among typical language-learning children and children with word-finding difficulties. Lang. Speech 45:285-317
56. Newman RS, German DJ. 2005. Life span effects of lexical factors on oral naming. Lang. Speech 48:123-56
57. Newman RS, Sawusch JR, Luce PA. 1997. Lexical neighborhood effects in phonetic processing. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 23:873-89
58. Norris D. 1994. Shortlist: a connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition 52:189-234
59. Norris D, McQueen JM. 2008. Shortlist B: a Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychol. Rev. 115:357-95
60. Otake T, Hatano G, Cutler A, Mehler J. 1993. Mora or syllable? Speech segmentation in Japanese. J. Mem. Lang. 32:258-78
61. Pylkkänen L, Stringfellow A, Marantz A. 2002. Neuromagnetic evidence for the timing of lexical activation: an MEG component sensitive to phonotactic probability but not to neighborhood density. Brain Lang. 81:666-78
62. Roodenrys S, Hulme C, Lethbridge A, Hinton M, Nimmo LM. 2002. Word-frequency and phonologicalneighborhood effects on verbal short-term memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 28:1019-34
63. Sadat J, Martin CD, Costa A, Alario FX. 2014. Reconciling phonological neighborhood effects in speech production through single trial analysis. Cogn. Psychol. 68:33-58
64. Siew CSQ. 2013. Community structure in the phonological network. Front. Psychol. 4:533
65. Sommers MS. 1996. The structural organization of the mental lexicon and its contributions to age-related declines in spoken word recognition. Psychol. Aging 11:333-41
66. Sommers MS, Danielson SE. 1999. Inhibitory processes and spoken word recognition in young and older adults: the interaction of lexical competition and semantic context. Psychol. Aging 14:458-72
67. Sommers MS, Lewis BP. 1999. Who really lives next door: creating false memories with phonological neighbors. J. Mem. Lang. 40:83-108
68. Stemberger JP. 2004. Neighbourhood effects on error rates in speech production. Brain Lang. 90:413-22
69. Storkel HL. 2004. Do children acquire dense neighborhoods? An investigation of similarity neighborhoods in lexical acquisition. Appl. Psycholinguist. 25:201-21
70. Strauss TJ, Harris HD, Magnuson JS. 2007. jTRACE: a reimplementation and extension of the TRACE model of speech perception and spoken word recognition. Behav. Res. Methods 39:19-30
71. Vitevitch MS. 1997. The neighborhood characteristics of malapropisms. Lang. Speech 40:211-28
72. Vitevitch MS. 2002a. Influence of onset density on spoken-word recognition. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 28:270-78
73. Vitevitch MS. 2002b. Naturalistic and experimental analyses of word frequency and neighborhood density effects in slips of the ear. Lang. Speech 45:407-34
74. Vitevitch MS. 2003. The influence of sublexical and lexical representations on the processing of spoken words in English. Clin. Linguist. Phon. 17:487-99
75. Vitevitch MS. 2008. What can graph theory tell us about word learning and lexical retrieval? J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 51:408-22
76. Vitevitch MS. 2012. What do foreign neighbors say about the mental lexicon? Biling. Lang. Cogn. 15:167-72
77. Vitevitch MS, Castro N. 2015. Using network science in the language sciences and clinic. Int. J. Speech Lang. Pathol. 17:13-25
78. Vitevitch MS, Chan KY, Goldstein R. 2014a. Insights into failed lexical retrieval from network science. Cogn. Psychol. 68:1-32
79. Vitevitch MS, Chan KY, Goldstein R. 2014b. Using English as a 'model language' to understand language processing. In Motor Speech Disorders A Cross-Language Perspective, ed. N Miller, A Lowit, pp. 58-73. Bristol, UK: Multiling. Matters
80. Vitevitch MS, Chan KY, Roodenrys S. 2012. Complex network structure influences processing in long-term and short-term memory. J. Mem. Lang. 67:30-44
81. Vitevitch MS, Ercal G, Adagarla B. 2011. Simulating retrieval from a highly clustered network: implications for spoken word recognition. Front. Lang. Sci. 2:369
82. Vitevitch MS, Luce PA. 1999. Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. J. Mem. Lang. 40:374-408
83. Vitevitch MS, Luce PA. 1998. When words compete: levels of processing in spoken word perception. Psychol. Sci. 9:325-29
84. Vitevitch MS, Luce PA. 2005. Increases in phonotactic probability facilitate spoken nonword repetition. J. Mem. Lang. 52:193-204
85. Vitevitch MS, Luce PA, Charles-Luce J, Kemmerer D. 1997. Phonotactics and syllable stress: implications for the processing of spoken nonsense words. Lang. Speech 40:47-62
86. Vitevitch MS, Luce PA, Pisoni DB, Auer ET. 1999. Phonotactics, neighborhood activation and lexical access for spoken words. Brain Lang. 68:306-11
87. Vitevitch MS, Rodríguez E. 2005. Neighborhood density effects in spoken word recognition in Spanish. J. Multiling. Commun. Disord. 3:64-73
88. Vitevitch MS, Siew CSQ, Castro N, Goldstein R, Gharst JA, et al. 2015. Speech error and tip of the tongue diary for mobile devices. Front. Psychol. 6:1190
89. Vitevitch MS, Sommers M. 2003. The facilitative influence of phonological similarity and neighborhood frequency in speech production. Mem. Cogn. 31:491-504
90. Vitevitch MS, Stamer MK. 2006. The curious case of competition in Spanish speech production. Lang. Cogn. Process. 21:760-70
91. Vitevitch MS, Stamer MK. 2009. The influence of neighborhood density (and neighborhood frequency) in Spanish speech production: a follow-up report. Spoken Lang. Lab. tech. rep., Univ. Kans., Lawrence. 6 pp.
92. Vitevitch MS, Stamer MK, Sereno JA. 2008. Word length and lexical competition: Longer is the same as shorter. Lang. Speech 51:361-83
93. Watts DJ, Strogatz SH. 1998. Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks. Nature 393:409-10
94. Wright R. 2004. Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation. In Laboratory Phonology 6, ed. JJ Local, R Ogden, R Temple, pp. 75-87. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
95. Yarkoni T, Balota DA, Yap MJ. 2008. Beyond Coltheart'sN: a newmeasure of orthographic similarity. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 15:971-79
96. Yates M, Locker L Jr, Simpson GB. 2004. The influence of phonological neighborhood on visual word perception. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 11:452-57