2019
DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000567
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lexical knowledge boosts statistically-driven speech segmentation.

Abstract: The hypothesis that known words can serve as anchors for discovering new words in connected speech has computational and empirical support. However, evidence for how the bootstrapping effect of known words interacts with other mechanisms of lexical acquisition, such as statistical learning, is incomplete. In 3 experiments, we investigated the consequences of introducing a known word in an artificial language with no segmentation cues other than cross-syllable transitional probabilities. We started with an arti… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
3
0
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
2
3
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…That is, familiarity with some linguistic features in the input boosts learners' ability to track statistical regularities overall from two language inputs. This finding is in line with recent research demonstrating that familiarity with features in the input benefits learning new regularities in that input (Antoniou et al, 2015;Palmer et al, 2019;Stä rk et al, 2023).…”
Section: How Lexical Tone Impacted Learningsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…That is, familiarity with some linguistic features in the input boosts learners' ability to track statistical regularities overall from two language inputs. This finding is in line with recent research demonstrating that familiarity with features in the input benefits learning new regularities in that input (Antoniou et al, 2015;Palmer et al, 2019;Stä rk et al, 2023).…”
Section: How Lexical Tone Impacted Learningsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Finally, 59 studies in the meta‐analysis comprise conditions designed to disrupt learning: for example, studies that divided participant attention (Batterink & Paller, 2019), increased cognitive load (Palmer, Hutson, White, & Mattys, 2019), or presented statistical cues that conflicted with lexical stress (Fernandes, Ventura, & Kolinsky, 2007). These studies did not significantly decrement learning in the whole sample ( F (1, 634) = 2.34, p = .13).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This interpretation is supported by recent findings, suggesting that children learn better in unbalanced than balanced distributions (i.e., in Zipf distributions), as it occurs in natural languages ( Lavi-Rotbain and Arnon, 2019 , 2020 , 2021 ). Due to cognitive limitations, the children’s immature brain might simply rely on the use of a more “economic” strategy, which may even have facilitated the learning of lower frequency elements later on ( Bortfeld et al, 2005 ; Palmer et al, 2019 ; Lavi-Rotbain and Arnon, 2021 ; Soares et al, 2021a ). Future research should contrast these two accounts by comparing the processing of homogenous speech streams (containing either low-TP or high-TP “words”) to heterogenous (mixed) streams, manipulating the frequency of occurrence of each token.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%