The Effect of Speaking Rate on the Role of the Uniqueness Point in Spoken Word Recognition

Radeau, Monique; Morais, José; Mousty, Philippe; Bertelson, Paul

doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2682

Cited by 29 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…deciding whether French nouns are masculine or feminine; Radeau et al, 1989). The UP effect, at least in the latter two tasks, may however depend on speaking rate: the effect in both shadowing and gender decision tends to be larger at slower speaking rates (Radeau et al, 2000). Furthermore, we have already seen that sentential context can influence the recognition process prior to a word's UP (e.g.…”

Section: When?mentioning

confidence: 73%

Eight questions about spoken word recognition

McQueen

2012

The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since word recognition is at the heart of the language-comprehension process, it has also always been a central topic in psycholinguistics. This article reviews current evidence on spoken word recognition, focusing on what is assumed to be the key aspect of the process: the way in which the listener derives from a spoken utterance a satisfactory lexical parse. The assumption is that this process entails abstraction, that is, a type of decoding in which the specific acoustic realisation of any given utterance is mapped onto store knowledge about the phonological form of individual words. To begin, what information in the speech signal is used in word recognition? Where are the words in the continuous speech stream? Which words did the speaker intend? When are the phonological forms of words recognised: How are words recognised? Whither spoken word recognition? The review of uptake of fine-grained segmental and suprasegmental information made clear that the speech signal is not just a sequence of phonemes.

show abstract

Section: When?mentioning

confidence: 73%

Eight questions about spoken word recognition

McQueen

2012

The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note furthermore that there is some debate about the psychological validity of such constructs in the processing of fluent speech (cf. Bölte &Uhe, 2004, andRadeau, Morais, Mousty, &Bertelson, 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The spread of the phonological neighborhood influences spoken word recognition

Vitevitch

2007

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

166In research on spoken language processing, neighborhood density refers to the number of words that sound similar to a given word: Words with many neighbors, or similar words, are said to have dense neighborhoods, whereas words with few neighbors are said to have sparse neighborhoods. Several studies in English have demonstrated that neighborhood density influences various aspects of spoken language processing, including lexical acquisition (e.g., Storkel, 2002Storkel, , 2004, speech production (e.g., Vitevitch, 1997Vitevitch, , 2002bVitevitch & Sommers, 2003), and spoken word recognition (Luce & Pisoni, 1998; see also Vitevitch & Rodríguez, 2005, for a discussion of the influence of neighborhood density on spoken word recognition in Spanish).In several laboratory-based spoken word recognition tasks, Luce and Pisoni (1998) demonstrated that English words with sparse neighborhoods are responded to more quickly and accurately than those with dense neighborhoods, suggesting that multiple word forms are activated and compete with each other during spoken word recognition. Words with large numbers of phonological neighbors (i.e., dense neighborhoods) are subject to greater competition and therefore recognized more slowly and less accurately than words with few phonological neighbors (i.e., sparse neighborhoods).Vitevitch (2002c) observed a similar processing disadvantage for words with dense neighborhoods in an analysis of a corpus containing speech perception errors, known as "slips of the ear," that were collected via naturalistic observation. An example of a slip of the ear is erroneously hearing the correctly produced question "What's wrong with her bike?" as "What's wrong with her back?" (Bond, 1999). In analyzing the misperceived words in Bond's corpus, Vitevitch (2002c) found that slips of the ear tended to occur in words with dense phonological neighborhoods, further suggesting that multiple word forms are activated and compete during spoken word recognition.The previously discussed studies clearly demonstrate that the number of phonologically related word forms that are activated influences spoken word recognition: Words with few neighbors are recognized more quickly and more accurately than words with many neighbors in English. Now, consider two words with the same number of phonological neighbors. Does some other factor, such as the distribution of the neighbors in the lexical neighborhood, influence the speed and accuracy of spoken word recognition? By way of illustration, consider the words mop (/ /) and mob (/ /). When a single phoneme substitutes any of the phonemes in the word mop, phonological neighbors are formed (e.g., hop, map, mock). However, similar substitutions in the word mob produce phonological neighbors at only two of the three phoneme positions (e.g., rob, m*b, mock); no real word in English is formed when the phoneme in the medial position of the word mob is substituted. Note that each word has the same total number of phonological neighbors, but that the number of phoneme positions i...

show abstract

“…The materials from Experiment 1 were digitally modified via Cool Edit Pro © software (Syntrillium Software) so that the rate of speech of the auditory sentences was slowed to 3.4 syllables per second, notably slower than the normal speech rate of 4-6 syllables per second (Radeau, Morais, Mousty, & Bertelson, 2000;van Heuven & van Zanten, 2005;Ziegler, 2002). Speech at this rate was perceived by unimpaired college students as sounding 'normal' but 'slowed' or 'tired'.…”

Section: Materials and Design-mentioning

confidence: 99%

How left inferior frontal cortex participates in syntactic processing: Evidence from aphasia☆

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report on three experiments that provide a real-time processing perspective on the poor comprehension of Broca's aphasic patients for non-canonically structured sentences. In the first experiment we presented sentences (via a Cross Modal Lexical Priming (CMLP) paradigm) to Broca's patients at a normal rate of speech. Unlike the pattern found with unimpaired control participants, we observed a general slowing of lexical activation and a concomitant delay in the formation of syntactic dependencies involving "moved" constituents and empty elements. Our second experiment presented these same sentences at a slower rate of speech. In this circumstance, Broca's patients formed syntactic dependencies as soon as they were structurally licensed (again, a different pattern from that demonstrated by the unimpaired control group). The third experiment used a sentence-picture matching paradigm to chart Broca's comprehension for non-canonically structured sentences (presented at both normal and slow rates). Here we observed significantly better scores in the slow rate condition. We discuss these findings in terms of the functional commitment of the left anterior cortical region implicated in Broca's aphasia and conclude that this region is crucially involved in the formation of syntactically-governed dependency relations, not because it supports knowledge of syntactic dependencies, but rather because it supports the real-time implementation of these specific representations by sustaining, at the least, a lexical activation rise-time parameter.

show abstract

The Effect of Speaking Rate on the Role of the Uniqueness Point in Spoken Word Recognition

Cited by 29 publications

References 52 publications

Eight questions about spoken word recognition

Eight questions about spoken word recognition

The spread of the phonological neighborhood influences spoken word recognition

How left inferior frontal cortex participates in syntactic processing: Evidence from aphasia☆

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About