Phonological neighborhood competition affects spoken word production irrespective of sentential context

Fox, Neal P.; Reilly, Megan; Blumstein, Sheila E.

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2015.04.002

Cited by 34 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using the presence or absence of minimal pair voicing contrasts as a proxy for lexical density, behavioral results show longer VOT values for words beginning with voiceless stop consonants that have voiced minimal pairs compared to words that do not (e.g. t ense-dense vs. t enth, *denth is not a word) (Baese-Berk & Goldrick, 2009; Fox, Reilly, & Blumstein, 2015). Peramunage et al (2011) examined the neural substrates of this lexically conditioned phonetic variation and showed cascading activation throughout the spoken word production system with modulatory effects under these conditions in the posterior superior temporal and supramarginal gyri (implicated in phonological and lexical selection), the inferior frontal gyrus (implicated in phonological planning) and the precentral gyrus (implicated in articulatory processes) (cf.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phonetic basis of phonemic paraphasias in aphasia: Evidence for cascading activation

Kurowski

Blumstein

2016

Cortex

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phonemic paraphasias are a common presenting symptom in aphasia and are thought to reflect a deficit in which selecting an incorrect phonemic segment results in the clear-cut substitution of one phonemic segment for another. The current study re-examines the basis of these paraphasias. Seven left hemisphere-damaged aphasics with a range of left hemisphere lesions and clinical diagnoses including Broca’s, Conduction, and Wernicke’s aphasia, were asked to produce syllable-initial voiced and voiceless fricative consonants, [z] and [s], in CV syllables followed by one of five vowels [i e a o u] in isolation and in a carrier phrase. Acoustic analyses were conducted focusing on two acoustic parameters signaling voicing in fricative consonants: duration and amplitude properties of the fricative noise. Results show that for all participants, regardless of clinical diagnosis or lesion site, phonemic paraphasias leave an acoustic trace of the original target in the error production. These findings challenge the view that phonemic paraphasias arise from a mis-selection of phonemic units followed by its correct implementation, as traditionally proposed. Rather, they appear to derive from a common mechanism with speech errors reflecting the co-activation of a target and competitor resulting in speech output that has some phonetic properties of both segments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phonetic basis of phonemic paraphasias in aphasia: Evidence for cascading activation

Kurowski

Blumstein

2016

Cortex

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Namely, VOT was longer for words that had a voiced minimal pair (e. g. tart-dart) compared to ones that did not (e. g. tar; *dar is not a word). Further behavioral work in our lab showed that this lexically-conditioned variation was actually driven by overall lexical density, not by the presence or absence of a voiced minimal pair (Fox, Reilly & Blumstein, 2015). In this study, participants read words either in isolation or in biased or neutral contexts.…”

Section: Segments Features and The Lexiconmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…Here, VOT was used as a proxy for lexical density (see Fox, Reilly & Blumstein, 2015 for discussion). That is, words beginning with voiceless stop consonants that had voiced minimal pair competitors were from high density neighborhoods and voiceless stop consonants that did not have voiced minimal pairs were from low density neighborhoods.…”

Section: Segments Features and The Lexiconmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phonetic categories and phonological features: Evidence from the cognitive neuroscience of language

Blumstein¹,

Lahiri²,

Kotzor³

2017

The Speech Processing Lexicon

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the central role that phonetic features and segments play in linguistic theory, there is debate about their status in language processing as well as the nature of their representations. In this chapter, we consider recent research examining evidence from the cognitive neuroscience of language that may not only inform but also help resolve this debate. Specifically, we investigate the neural systems underlying phonetic category and phonetic feature invariance, and the role of segments and features in lexical access. Results from a series of functional neuroimaging studies provide evidence that there is an invariant representation for phonetic categories as well as an invariant representation for more abstract phonetic features. The neural areas activated suggest that the source of phonetic category invariance reflects computations over phonetic category membership, and phonetic feature representations are acoustic in nature but are based on more abstract properties of speech rather than directly sensory processes. Additionally, lexical representations in both auditory word recognition and spoken word production include both segments and the features that underlie them.

show abstract

“…Note that this may underestimate individual differences. A random intercept by word was also included to model potential differences in VOT according to word-level factors like neighbourhood density (Goldinger and Summers, 1989;Fox et al, 2015). We examined the improvement to model fit of including the random talker intercepts using a likelihood ratio test (χ 2 ) comparing models with just the random word intercept and models including both intercepts (see also Kliegl et al, 2011, for discussion of using random effects to examine individual differences).…”

Section: Individual Differences In Individual Cuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual Talker and Token Covariation in the Production of Multiple Cues to Stop Voicing

Clayards¹

2017

Phonetica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aims: Previous research found that individual talkers have consistent differences in the production of segments impacting the perception of their speech by others. Speakers also produce multiple acoustic-phonetic cues to phonological contrasts. Less is known about how multiple cues covary within a phonetic category and across talkers. We examined differences in individual talkers across cues and whether token-by-token variability is a result of intrinsic factors or speaking style by examining within-category correlations. Methods: We examined correlations for 3 cues (voice onset time, VOT, talker-relative onset fundamental frequency, f0, and talker-relative following vowel duration) to word-initial labial stop voicing in English. Results: VOT for /b/ and /p/ productions and onset f0 for /b/ productions varied significantly by talker. Token-by-token within-category variation was largely limited to speaking rate effects. VOT and f0 were negatively correlated within category for /b/ productions after controlling for speaking rate and talker mean f0, but in the opposite direction expected for an intrinsic effect. Within-category talker means were correlated across VOT and vowel duration for /p/ productions. Some talkers produced more prototypical values than others, indicating systematic talker differences. Conclusion: Relationships between cues are mediated more by categories and talkers than by intrinsic physiological relationships. Talker differences reflect systematic speaking style differences.

show abstract

Phonological neighborhood competition affects spoken word production irrespective of sentential context

Cited by 34 publications

References 76 publications

Phonetic basis of phonemic paraphasias in aphasia: Evidence for cascading activation

Phonetic basis of phonemic paraphasias in aphasia: Evidence for cascading activation

Phonetic categories and phonological features: Evidence from the cognitive neuroscience of language

Individual Talker and Token Covariation in the Production of Multiple Cues to Stop Voicing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About