Chronometric analysis of speech perception

Abstract

The relationship between the phonological properties of speech sounds and the corresponding semantic entries was studied in two experiments using response time measures. Monosyllabic words and nonsense words were used in both experiments. In Experiment I, Ss were each presented with individual items and were required, in three different conditions, to respond positively if (1) the item contained a particular final consonant, (2) the item was a real word. (3) the item contained either a particular consonant or was a real word. Latencies indicated that separate retrieval of phonological and lexical information took about the same time, but that their combined retrieval was longer, indicating a serial or overlapping process. In Experiment II, Ss were presented with pairs of items, and they responded positively if (1) the two items were physically identical, (2) the two items were lexically identical (both real words or both nonsense words). Response latencies were longer for lexical than for physical matches. Lexical matches were significantly slower than physical matches even on the same pair of items. The results imply differential accessibility to separate loci of phonological and semantic features.

Phoneme identification and the lexicon

“…As discussed above, it has been repeatedly observed that monitoring for more than one target simultaneously is more difficult than monitoring for a single target (Foss & Dowell, 1971;Steinheiser & Burrows, 1973;Treisman & Squire, 1974). Foss and Gernsbacher (1983) had also attempted this manipulation, but without controlling for vowel identity.…”

Effects of phoneme repertoire

“…In the predictable context, listeners were presumably able to form precise expectations of the form ofthe target given the target specification plus the information, provided by the first syllables in the incoming sequence, as to the nature of the vowel. In the unpredictable context, they had only the target specification itself to work with; in theory, they could have constructed precise expectations of the four relevant syllables in the experiment, but in practice they apparently did not (note that phoneme detection becomes enormously harder if subjects have to retain more than one target specification in memory; Foss & Dowell, 1971;Steinheiser & Burrows, 1973). In other words, we assume that the context effects observed in our study (and its predecessors) are more accurately described as facilitation of detection in the predictable-context condition, rather than inhibition of detection in the unpredictable-context condition.…”

Three interrelated problems in reading: A review

“…They concluded, however, that phonemes must have some independent, if abstract, existence interrelating between sensory input and articulatory output, in view of the existence of rhyme and alliteration in nonliterate poetry, the natural occurrence of segmental spoonerisms, and the sound shifts which seem to occur at phonemic levels in the history of language evolution. Steinheiser and Burrows (1973) similarly concluded that phoneme monitoring is not normally a component of word monitoring, that phonemes are not primary units of speech, and that the obtaining of phonemic and lexical information may be two quite independent operations, with the latter possibly occurring during the former but not necessarily dependent upon it. They, too, favored the syllable as a unit of both lexical and phonemic analysis (where the latter should be required) and found that syllable identifications were faster than lexical analyses involving word/nonword decisions.…”

“…(4) Steinheiser and Burrows (1973) presented monosyllabic and nonsense words, measuring their Ss' classificatory RTs. They required a positive response (1) if there was a target present of any final consonant (phonological analysis), (2) if the item was a real word (lexical analysis), or (3) if either of the above were true (combined phonological and lexical analysis).…”