Individual differences in online spoken word recognition: Implications for SLI

McMurray, Bob; Samelson, Vicki M.; Lee, Sung Hee; Tomblin, J. Bruce

doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.06.003

Cited by 203 publications

(420 citation statements)

References 117 publications

(208 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

392

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Children with SLI are less effective in ignoring lexical competitors (McMurray, Munson, & Tomblin, 2014;McMurray, Samelson, Lee, & Tomblin, 2010), and more likely to vacillate on their responses when exposed to word fragments with multiple alternative continuations (Mainela-Arnold, Evans, & Coady, 2008). Children with SLI also display greater lexical influences on speech perception than age-matched controls (Schwartz, Scheffler, & Lopez, 2013).…”

Section: Susceptibility To Lexical Influences May Relate To Speech-inmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Downside of Greater Lexical Influences: Selectively Poorer Speech Perception in Noise

Lam

Xie

Tessmer

et al. 2017

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

,d,e Purpose: Although lexical information influences phoneme perception, the extent to which reliance on lexical information enhances speech processing in challenging listening environments is unclear. We examined the extent to which individual differences in lexical influences on phonemic processing impact speech processing in maskers containing varying degrees of linguistic information (2-talker babble or pink noise). Method: Twenty-nine monolingual English speakers were instructed to ignore the lexical status of spoken syllables (e.g., gift vs. kift) and to only categorize the initial phonemes (/g/ vs. /k/ ). The same participants then performed speech recognition tasks in the presence of 2-talker babble or pink noise in audio-only and audiovisual conditions.Results: Individuals who demonstrated greater lexical influences on phonemic processing experienced greater speech processing difficulties in 2-talker babble than in pink noise. These selective difficulties were present across audio-only and audiovisual conditions. Conclusion: Individuals with greater reliance on lexical processes during speech perception exhibit impaired speech recognition in listening conditions in which competing talkers introduce audible linguistic interferences. Future studies should examine the locus of lexical influences/ interferences on phonemic processing and speechin-speech processing.

show abstract

Section: Susceptibility To Lexical Influences May Relate To Speech-inmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Downside of Greater Lexical Influences: Selectively Poorer Speech Perception in Noise

Lam

Xie

Tessmer

et al. 2017

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These methods are ideal for use with children as well as patients with aphasia [26] as they require little by the way of overt task, yet provide time-locked data detailing the course of language processing which can then be modelled (e.g. [27]). …”

Section: (B) Developmental Disorders: Traditional Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

When words fail us: insights into language processing from developmental and acquired disorders

Bishop

Nation

Patterson

2014

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acquired disorders of language represent loss of previously acquired skills, usually with relatively specific impairments. In children with developmental disorders of language, we may also see selective impairment in some skills; but in this case, the acquisition of language or literacy is affected from the outset. Because systems for processing spoken and written language change as they develop, we should beware of drawing too close a parallel between developmental and acquired disorders. Nevertheless, comparisons between the two may yield new insights. A key feature of connectionist models simulating acquired disorders is the interaction of components of language processing with each other and with other cognitive domains. This kind of model might help make sense of patterns of comorbidity in developmental disorders. Meanwhile, the study of developmental disorders emphasizes learning and change in underlying representations, allowing us to study how heterogeneity in cognitive profile may relate not just to neurobiology but also to experience. Children with persistent language difficulties pose challenges both to our efforts at intervention and to theories of learning of written and spoken language. Future attention to learning in individuals with developmental and acquired disorders could be of both theoretical and applied value.

show abstract

“…Individual differences studies provide insight into the ecological validity of models of language processing (cf. McMurray, Samelson, Hee Lee, & Tomblin, 2010;and Andrews & Hersch, 2010, on reading), and may offer directions to further specify these models so that differences between language users follow more evidently from them.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Nonwords: Effects of Lexical Neighborhoods, Phonotactic Probability, and Listener Characteristics

Janse

Newman

2012

Lang Speech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Listeners find it relatively difficult to recognize words that are similar-sounding to other known words. In contrast, when asked to identify spoken nonwords, listeners perform better when the nonwords are similar to many words in their language. These effects of sound similarity have been assessed in multiple ways, and both sublexical (phonotactic probability) and lexical (neighborhood) effects have been reported, leading to models that incorporate multiple stages of processing. One prediction that can be derived from these models is that there may be differences among individuals in the size of these similarity effects as a function of working memory abilities. This study investigates how item-individual characteristics of nonwords (both phonotactic probability and neighborhood density) interact with listener-individual characteristics (such as cognitive abilities and hearing sensitivity) in the perceptual identification of nonwords. A set of nonwords was used in which neighborhood density and phonotactic probability were not correlated. In our data, neighborhood density affected identification more reliably than did phonotactic probability. The first study, with young adults, showed that higher neighborhood density particularly benefits nonword identification for those with poorer attention-switching control. This suggests that it may be easier to focus attention on a novel item if it activates and receives support from more similar-sounding neighbors. A similar study on nonword identification with older adults showed increased neighborhood density effects for those with poorer hearing, suggesting that activation of long-term linguistic knowledge is particularly important to back up auditory representations that are degraded as a result of hearing loss.

show abstract

Individual differences in online spoken word recognition: Implications for SLI

Cited by 203 publications

References 117 publications

The Downside of Greater Lexical Influences: Selectively Poorer Speech Perception in Noise

The Downside of Greater Lexical Influences: Selectively Poorer Speech Perception in Noise

When words fail us: insights into language processing from developmental and acquired disorders

Identifying Nonwords: Effects of Lexical Neighborhoods, Phonotactic Probability, and Listener Characteristics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About