1999
DOI: 10.1006/jmla.1998.2618
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Probabilistic Phonotactics and Neighborhood Activation in Spoken Word Recognition

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

40
540
3
5

Year Published

2002
2002
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
4
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 578 publications
(604 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
(90 reference statements)
40
540
3
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, a pre-existing representation from the lexicon could serve to constrain possible mappings for English words relative to novel words [22,38]. Alternatively, it is possible that a neighborhood of highly similar English words was activated as a set of possible matches for the pseudo-English stimulus [45]. In either case, although transformation of the Foreign strings to a phonological representation may have placed greater demands on pLIPC control processes, the pseudo-English words may have resulted in a greater load on the phonological system because multiple representations may have been brought on-line.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, a pre-existing representation from the lexicon could serve to constrain possible mappings for English words relative to novel words [22,38]. Alternatively, it is possible that a neighborhood of highly similar English words was activated as a set of possible matches for the pseudo-English stimulus [45]. In either case, although transformation of the Foreign strings to a phonological representation may have placed greater demands on pLIPC control processes, the pseudo-English words may have resulted in a greater load on the phonological system because multiple representations may have been brought on-line.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…During subsequent language development in children, high phonotactic probability leads to a faster acquisition of words (Storkel, 2001), a better recall of non-words (Gathercole et al, 1999) and a higher accuracy of non-word repetition (Coady and Aslin, 2004). In adults, phonotactic probability affects a large number of language processes, ranging from the speed and ease of spoken word recognition (Vitevitch and Luce, 1999) to listeners' metalinguistic judgments of word-likeness (Bailey and Hahn, 2001). Although these and other behavioral effects are relatively well documented (for a review see Auer and Luce, 2003), neural correlates of phonotactic probability remain largely unexplored.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, the appearance of such patterns in utterances signals the likely location of word boundaries. Once again, there is empirical evidence that adult listeners take advantage of such phonotactic patterns in segmenting and recognizing words (McQueen, 1998;Vitevitch & Luce, 1999). Finally, another source of information in the acoustic signal that potentially cues word boundaries resides in the positioning of certain allophones (Bolinger & Gerstman, 1957;Church, 1987;Hockett, 1955, Lehiste, 1960.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%