Lexical effects in phonemic processing: Facilitatory or inhibitory?

Frauenfelder, Uli; Seguí, Juan; Dijkstra, Ton

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.16.1.77

Cited by 106 publications

(141 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

126

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…If the comprehension system reacts to the incoming phonological representation in the same way as it reacts to an acoustic speech signal, then the speed-up in processing for word-final phonemes (which would occur after the word's uniqueness point, see Frauenfelder et al, 1990) may be a comprehension effect. In other words, responses to word-final phonemes may be based on phonological information made available following lexical access in the comprehension lexicon.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring the Time Course of Phonological Encoding

Wheeldon

Levelt

1995

Journal of Memory and Language

239

250

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments examined the time course of phonological encoding in speech production. A new methodology is introduced in which subjects are required to monitor their internal speech production for prespecified target segments and syllables. Experiment 1 demonstrated that word initial target segments are monitored significantly faster than second syllable initial target segments. The addition of a concurrent articulation task (Experiment lb) had a limited effect on performance, excluding the possibility that subjects are monitoring a subvocal articulation of the carrier word. Moreover, no relationship was observed between the pattern of monitoring latencies and the timing of the targets in subjects' overt speech. Subjects are not, therefore, monitoring an internal phonetic representation of the carrier word. Experiment 2 used the production monitoring task to replicate the syllable monitoring effect observed in speech perception experiments: responses to targets were faster when they corresponded to the initial syllable of the carrier word than when they did not. We conclude that subjects are monitoring their internal generation of a syllabified phonological representation. Experiment 3 provides more detailed evidence concerning the time course of the generation of this representation by comparing monitoring latencies to targets within, as well as between, syllables. Some amendments to current models of phonological encoding are suggested in light of these results. © 1995 Academic Press, inc.Most current models of speech production propose that articulation is preceded by the generation of an abstract representation of the form of the target word or utterance (Dell, 1986(Dell, , 1988Garrett, 1975;Levelt, 1989;Levelt & Wheeldon, 1994;Shattuck-Hufnagel, 1979. Indeed, the existence of an internal abstract speech code is a basic assumption within psycholinguistic theory. In speech recognition, a store of abstract lexical representations has been postulated to accommodate the fact that no two tokens of a given word form are acoustically identical (Lahiri & Marslen-Wilson, 1991). Similarly, in speechThe authors thank Ger Desserjer and Jouke Riepkema for their help with the running and analysis of the experiments reported, and Vincent Evers for carrying out speech lab measurements. Many thanks also to Antje Meyer, Pienie Zwitserlood, and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on an earlier version of this article. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Linda Wheeldon, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK. production the same word, in different contexts, can be spoken with very different segmental and syllable structure, intonation, duration, and amplitude. This generalization has long been captured in linguistic theory by the proposal that every linguistic item has a unique phonological representation which encodes only that information which can distinguish among words in the language. Phonological representations are categorical in nature and consist of discre...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring the Time Course of Phonological Encoding

Wheeldon

Levelt

1995

Journal of Memory and Language

239

250

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two studies [46,47] failed to find any slowing effect for contextually inconsistent phonemes, casting doubt on interactive processing. However, subsequent simulations showed that the TRACE model was consistent with previous failures to demonstrate this effect and correctly predicted the conditions required to show lexical inhibition [17].…”

Section: Lexical Inhibition Of Phoneme Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are there interactive processes in speech perception?

McClelland

Mirman

Holt

2006

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

231

191

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lexical information facilitates speech perception, especially when sounds are ambiguous or degraded. The interactive approach to understanding this effect posits that this facilitation is accomplished through bi-directional flow of information, allowing lexical knowledge to influence pre-lexical processes. Alternative autonomous theories posit feed-forward processing with lexical influence restricted to post-perceptual decision processes. We review evidence supporting the prediction of interactive models that lexical influences can affect pre-lexical mechanisms, triggering compensation, adaptation and retuning of phonological processes generally taken to be pre-lexical. We argue that these and other findings point to interactive processing as a fundamental principle for perception of speech and other modalities.

show abstract

“…Marslen-Wilson 1987), though certain factors such as semantic/syntactic context (Zwitserlood 1989) or word frequency can additionally affect the position of the recognition point. Contrary to predictions of alternative theories, such as the connectionist model TRACE by Elman/McClelland (1984), there is no evidence that activated competitors actively inhibit one another (Frauenfelder/Segui/Dijkstra 1990).…”

Section: Phonological Decodingmentioning

confidence: 59%

“…Though there is good evidence that a word's acoustic-phonetic processing is not affected by lexical or higher level processes (Frauenfelder/Segui/Dijkstra 1990), the effects of context on word recognition have been heavily debated. It is rather safe now to say that when a speaker hears an ambiguous word (like bank), both of its meanings are temporarily retrieved from the lexicon, even if one is ruled out by the context (as in / withdrew my money from the bank) (Seidenberg/Tanenhaus/Leiman/Bienkowski 1982).…”

Section: Incrementality Autonomy and Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%