2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2017.08.030
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Forehearing words: Pre-activation of word endings at word onset

Abstract: Occurring at rates up to 6-7 syllables per second, speech perception and understanding involves rapid identification of speech sounds and pre-activation of morphemes and words. Using event-related potentials (ERPs) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we investigated the time-course and neural sources of pre-activation of word endings as participants heard the beginning of unfolding words. ERPs showed a pre-activation negativity (PrAN) for word beginnings (first two segmental phonemes) with few po… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
26
2

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
3
26
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The hypothesis that monolinguals would use suprasegmental and segmental information to predict a word's suffix was supported. Our data are consistent with prior studies showing that natives use suprasegmental information to predict morphological information (tone: Roll, 2015; Söderström et al, 2012) and syntactic information (intonation: Nakamura et al, 2012; Weber et al, 2006; pauses between clauses: Hawthorne & Gerken, 2014; Kjelgaard & Speer, 1999), and segmental information to anticipate morphological information (syllabic structure: Sagarra & Casillas, 2018; phonotactic probability: Roll et al, 2017). The influence of these linguistic variables is so robust that listeners anticipate a word's suffix even when it is not present (Sagarra & Casillas, 2018; Söderström, Horne & Roll, 2017).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The hypothesis that monolinguals would use suprasegmental and segmental information to predict a word's suffix was supported. Our data are consistent with prior studies showing that natives use suprasegmental information to predict morphological information (tone: Roll, 2015; Söderström et al, 2012) and syntactic information (intonation: Nakamura et al, 2012; Weber et al, 2006; pauses between clauses: Hawthorne & Gerken, 2014; Kjelgaard & Speer, 1999), and segmental information to anticipate morphological information (syllabic structure: Sagarra & Casillas, 2018; phonotactic probability: Roll et al, 2017). The influence of these linguistic variables is so robust that listeners anticipate a word's suffix even when it is not present (Sagarra & Casillas, 2018; Söderström, Horne & Roll, 2017).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…As a result, the mere presence of a coda may be perceived as more salient acoustically (Hahn & Bailey, 2005) or articulatory (Côté, 1997) to the listener. Crucial to our study, the structure of a word's first syllable can reduce competition during lexical access (Cholin et al, 2006), such that initial segments with fewer possible and more frequent endings trigger stronger preactivation (Roll et al, 2017). In other words, the syllable structure of a lexical item might aid anticipatory processes before morphological information becomes available.…”
Section: Lexical Stress and Syllabic Structure In Spanish And Englishmentioning
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Effects can even be seen on determiners or modifiers, when these have specific gender or phonological characteristics (e.g. "a kite") that are consistent or inconsistent with an anticipated noun ("an … kite") [10,15,[32][33][34][35], as well as within 150 ms following word onsets that can differentiate between words with many possible continuations and words with few [36][37].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, evidence for pre-target word activation is still scarce, and has come only from studies where words are presented visually. Although top-down influences on sensory areas have been well documented in the auditory domain 18 , 19 , these have always focused on response to the actual word and have thus examined processing differences once initial sensory input is available.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%