PsycEXTRA Dataset 2013
DOI: 10.1037/e633262013-240
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Immediate Effects of Anticipatory Coarticulation in Spoken-Word Recognition

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
18
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In order to maximize the power of our analyses, we collapsed over the early and garden-path trials up until adjective onset plus 200 ms because they are equivalent in this region and thus cannot be distinguished by participants. We use 200 ms because it is a conservative estimate of the lower bound for linguistically mediated saccades in task-based visual world experiments (Salverda, Kleinschmidt, & Tanenhaus, 2014). Before doing so, however, we confirmed that these trials indeed did not differ from one another.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…In order to maximize the power of our analyses, we collapsed over the early and garden-path trials up until adjective onset plus 200 ms because they are equivalent in this region and thus cannot be distinguished by participants. We use 200 ms because it is a conservative estimate of the lower bound for linguistically mediated saccades in task-based visual world experiments (Salverda, Kleinschmidt, & Tanenhaus, 2014). Before doing so, however, we confirmed that these trials indeed did not differ from one another.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Because target signs differed in length across trials, we divided each RT value by the length of the corresponding target sign. Previous research on spoken language suggests that at least 200 ms is required to program an eye movement (Salverda, Kleinschmidt, & Tanenhaus, 2014), so we subtracted 200 ms from each RT to account for eye movements that were initiated during the end of the target sign (proportion target sign = RT−200 ms Sign Length ). Mean proportion of sign processed was computed for each token of each target sign and then averaged over all target signs within participants, reflecting the amount of information signers processed before generating an eye movement, on average.…”
Section: Proportionsignlengthprocessedprior Toshiftingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…the distractor) was split into 100 ms time bins. The window of analysis started 200 ms after the beginning of the target, accounting for the time it takes to initiate eye movements (Matin, Shao, & Boff, 1993;Salverda, Kleinschmidt, & Tanenhaus, 2014). Note that in studies with children, analyses can also begin 300 ms after the target, due to longer latencies in children's eye movements (Buckler & Fikkert, 2016; also see Swingley & Aslin, 2000, for a discussion of latencies).…”
Section: Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%