Modeling the relation between the production and recognition of spoken word forms

Roelofs, Ardi

doi:10.1515/9783110895094.115

Cited by 22 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, assuming that the same concepts and linguistic representations are used in language comprehension and production (Roelofs, 2003), the problem of how idioms are represented in the mental lexicon is shared by both theories of comprehension and production. And indeed, the superlemma model can also be read, from input to concepts, as an account of idiom comprehension.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why are idioms recognized fast?

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is an established fact that idiomatic expressions are fast to process. However, the explanation of the phenomenon is controversial. Using a semantic judgment paradigm, where people decide whether a string is meaningful or not, the present experiment tested the predictions deriving from the three main theories of idiom recognition-the lexical representation hypothesis, the idiom decomposition hypothesis, and the configuration hypothesis. Participants were faster at judging decomposable idioms, nondecomposable idioms, and clichés than at judging their matched controls. The effect was comparable for all conventional expressions. The results were interpreted as suggesting that, as posited by the configuration hypothesis, the fact that they are known expressions, rather than idiomaticity, explains their fast recognition.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why are idioms recognized fast?

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Actually, some imaging evidence suggests that different parts of Wernicke's area are involved in production and perception (Wise et al, 2001). If phonological input and output networks are separate but tightly connected, then activation of one phonological network would lead to the activation of the other, explaining the co-activation in imaging studies (Roelofs, 2003b).…”

Section: Evidence For Cross-talk Between Planning and Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, on the basis of reviews of the literature, Monsell (1987) and Roelofs (2003b) concluded that the position of two linked systems best explains the available data. Given that some studies have suggested some influences from planning on recognition, the question arises about why links from production to perception would exist in separate but closely linked systems.…”

Section: Evidence For Cross-talk Between Planning and Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the present article, we report a series of experiments that examined the presence and nature of these influences. As a working model for the present research, we used the WEAVERϩϩ model of spoken word planning and self-monitoring (Levelt et al, 1999;Roelofs, 1992Roelofs, , 1997Roelofs, , 2003aRoelofs, , 2003bRoelofs, , 2004Roelofs, , 2006, illustrated in Figure 1.…”

Section: A Working Model For the Present Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influences of spoken word planning on speech recognition.

Roelofs

Özdemir

Levelt

2007

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 4 chronometric experiments, influences of spoken word planning on speech recognition were examined. Participants were shown pictures while hearing a tone or a spoken word presented shortly after picture onset. When a spoken word was presented, participants indicated whether it contained a prespecified phoneme. When the tone was presented, they indicated whether the picture name contained the phoneme (Experiment 1) or they named the picture (Experiment 2). Phoneme monitoring latencies for the spoken words were shorter when the picture name contained the prespecified phoneme compared with when it did not. Priming of phoneme monitoring was also obtained when the phoneme was part of spoken nonwords (Experiment 3). However, no priming of phoneme monitoring was obtained when the pictures required no response in the experiment, regardless of monitoring latency (Experiment 4). These results provide evidence that an internal phonological pathway runs from spoken word planning to speech recognition and that active phonological encoding is a precondition for engaging the pathway.Keywords: speech perception, speech production, self-monitoring In psycholinguistics, speech production and speech comprehension are often studied as if they were separate and independent processes. However, in everyday communication, speech production and recognition often seem to happen simultaneously. Speakers regularly seem to plan their turn in a conversation while simultaneously listening to an interlocutor. Moreover, speakers seem to monitor their own speech for errors while simultaneously planning an upcoming utterance (e.g., Levelt, 1989). This raises the question of how ongoing speech recognition processes influence the planning of speech and vice versa. In the present article, we examine the issue of how production affects recognition for the phonological level of planning and processing. Influences of speech production on speech recognition and vice versa should occur if phonological representations and processes are shared between production and recognition, but also when the production and perception systems are separate but tightly linked. We start by discussing some of the scarce evidence about the influences of production on perception and about whether the phonological systems are shared or separate. The evidence comes from chronometric, dual-task accuracy, neuropsychological, and functional brain imaging studies. Next, we discuss some of the functional reasons for the existence of links running from production to perception in separate but closely linked systems, and we describe our working model WEAVERϩϩ, which assumes separate but connected phonological systems. Then, we provide an overview of the new experiments reported in the present article, which are reported next. Finally, we discuss the theoretical implications of our findings in the General Discussion section. Evidence for Cross-Talk Between Planning and RecognitionChronometric evidence from object naming studies suggests that hearing spoken words influences spoken w...

show abstract

“…My first major point was that the lexical and mixed error biases and the mixed distractor latency effect do not specifically support production-internal feedback, contrary to what Rapp and Goldrick (2000) maintained. I showed that a model with comprehension-based rather than production-internal feedback, namely WEAVERϩϩ (e.g., Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999;Roelofs, 1992Roelofs, , 1997Roelofs, , 2003aRoelofs, , 2003bRoelofs & Hagoort, 2002), accounts for the error and latency findings. My second major point was that extant productioninternal feedback accounts of the error biases and latency effects are incompatible.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Comprehension-Based Versus Production-Internal Feedback in Planning Spoken Words: A Rejoinder to Rapp and Goldrick (2004).

Roelofs¹

2004

Psychological Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

WEAVERϩϩ has no backward links in its form-production network and yet is able to explain the lexical and mixed error biases and the mixed distractor latency effect. This refutes the claim of B. Rapp and M. Goldrick (2000) that these findings specifically support production-internal feedback. Whether their restricted interaction account model can also provide a unified account of the error biases and latency effect remains to be shown.There were two major points in my comment (Roelofs, 2004) on the article by Rapp and Goldrick (2000). My first major point was that the lexical and mixed error biases and the mixed distractor latency effect do not specifically support production-internal feedback, contrary to what Rapp and Goldrick (2000) maintained. I showed that a model with comprehension-based rather than production-internal feedback, namely WEAVERϩϩ (e.g., Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999;Roelofs, 1992Roelofs, , 1997Roelofs, , 2003aRoelofs, , 2003bRoelofs & Hagoort, 2002), accounts for the error and latency findings. My second major point was that extant productioninternal feedback accounts of the error biases and latency effects are incompatible.In their reply, Rapp and Goldrick (2004) agreed that the empirical evidence leaves open whether the feedback is comprehension based or production internal: "We find no clear evidence in support of the claim that feedback in spoken word production is unambiguously a component of the comprehension process. However, it is important to be clear that neither is there clear evidence that it is not" (p. 578). Moreover, they were silent on the issue of whether the production-internal feedback in their restricted interaction account (RIA) model serves speech comprehension. It is important to be clear, however, that regardless of the possible comprehension purposes of the backward links in RIA, the account of the findings by Rapp and Goldrick (2000) is in terms of feedback that occurs in a production network, which differs from my account in terms of two strictly feedforward networks, one for production and the other for comprehension, as implemented in WEAVERϩϩ. I refer to Roelofs (2003b) for a review of the evidence for distinct word-form networks for production and comprehension. On my account, feedback arises because the feedforward production network activates the feedforward comprehension network. A secondary issue is whether activation of the comprehension network by the production network happens automatically, as suggested by the new evidence of Humphreys (2002) and Nooteboom (in press) referred to by Rapp and Goldrick (2004), or whether it is under voluntary control, as I assumed on the basis of the available evidence (Roelofs, 2004). Either way, the feedback does not happen production-network internally, which is the critical point.The second major point of my comment (Roelofs, 2004) was that extant production-internal feedback accounts of the mixed error bias and the mixed distractor latency effect are incompatible. Rapp and Goldrick (2004) disputed this claim. Accordin...

show abstract

Modeling the relation between the production and recognition of spoken word forms

Cited by 22 publications

References 85 publications

Why are idioms recognized fast?

Why are idioms recognized fast?

Influences of spoken word planning on speech recognition.

Comprehension-Based Versus Production-Internal Feedback in Planning Spoken Words: A Rejoinder to Rapp and Goldrick (2004).

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About