2010
DOI: 10.1515/labphon.2010.016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstraction-based Efficiency in the Lexicon

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Specifically, the facilitatory effect of indexical information was only observed during a task involving recognition memory but not a task which involved lexical access, i.e., word identification. This clear distinction in the emergence of talker familiarity effects in the tasks with and without lexical access, together with results from other recent studies (Jesse et al, 2007;Kittredge et al, 2006;Lee & Zhang, 2015), seems to suggest that indexical information is not stored as an integral part of the lexical representations, which is in line with theories suggesting the existence of an episodic memory system, distinct from the mental lexicon but linked to a linguistically abstract lexical or prelexical level, where indexical information is stored (Cutler, 2010a).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Specifically, the facilitatory effect of indexical information was only observed during a task involving recognition memory but not a task which involved lexical access, i.e., word identification. This clear distinction in the emergence of talker familiarity effects in the tasks with and without lexical access, together with results from other recent studies (Jesse et al, 2007;Kittredge et al, 2006;Lee & Zhang, 2015), seems to suggest that indexical information is not stored as an integral part of the lexical representations, which is in line with theories suggesting the existence of an episodic memory system, distinct from the mental lexicon but linked to a linguistically abstract lexical or prelexical level, where indexical information is stored (Cutler, 2010a).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Different studies (see, e.g., Cutler (2010a) and McLennan and Luce (2005)) expressed the need for a hybrid model of speech perception activating and exploiting both abstract representations and more specific form-based representations. Several attempts have been made in formulating such a hybrid theory (e.g., Cutler (2010a), Goldinger (2007), Kleinschmidt and Jaeger (2015), Luce et al (2003), andMcQueen et al (2006)).…”
Section: The Role Of Talker Familiarity In Speech Processingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using perceptual learning data to infer the types of levels and abstractions necessary for speech perception is not novel to this dissertation. This same approach has already been taken by McQueen et al (2006); Cutler (2010); Cutler, Eisner, McQueen, and Norris (2010). One of the main points in all of these papers is that perceptual learning generalizes to untrained items (such as novel words), and that this type of generalization requires sub-lexical abstraction (such as phoneme units).…”
Section: Theoretical Implications Of Perceptual Learningmentioning
confidence: 74%
“…perceptual learning are critical to our understanding of the types of abstract units and the levels and pathways of processing in the speech perception system. Previous perceptual learning studies have generalization across factors like talker and phoneme and have used this to argue in favor of abstract units, suggesting that if listeners generalize a boundary shift along a b/p continuum to a d/t continuum as well, they must have adjusted the mappings between VOT and voicing features rather than specific phonemes(McQueen et al, 2006;Cutler, 2010;Cutler et al, 2010). Tests of specificity, however, provide a stronger test of abstraction, in that phoneme-or talker-specific learning should not be possible if speech perception is mediated by units of this sort.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A core debate over perception of spoken words is how abstract knowledge about their phonological composition [1] and episodic memory for specific tokens of a word interact to support flexible word recognition [2,3]. Listeners familiarized to words spoken with "odd" variants of one vowel/contrast generalize the deviant variants to recognition of untrained words by the same speaker that contain those vowels [4][5][6].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%