Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech

Marslen–Wilson, William D.; Welsh, A. H.

doi:10.1016/0010-0285(78)90018-x

Cited by 1,240 publications

(956 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

877

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A descendent of the logogen model that also stresses an interactive approach to vvord recognition is Cohort Theory (Marslen-Wilson & Welsh, 1978;Marslen-Wilson &Tyler, 1980. This model views the tirst stage of auditory 'NOrd recognition as the activation of a group of words, a cohort.…”

Section: Modela Of Ward Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies utilizing the shadowing paradigm (Marslen-Wilson, 1975Marslen-Wilson & Welsh, 1978) have been cited in support of cohort theory. In an early study, Marslen-Wilson (1975) asked subjects to repeat recorded passages as quickly as possible as they 'Nere heard.…”

Section: Modela Of Ward Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A fundamental goal of speech perception research has been the identification of perceptual units in the speech signal that must be isolated by listeners in order for ward recognition to take place. The prevalent view among theorists is that the minimum semantically contrastive sound units of a given languagephonemes -must be identified at sorne stage in normal speech processing (Elman & McClelland, 1984;Forster, 1976;Liberman, Cooper, Shank'Neiler, & Studdert-Kennedy, 1967;Marslen-Wilson & Welsh, 1978;McClelland & Elman, 1986). Assuming this is the case, models of 'NOrd recognition must address the formidable problem of how these acoustic segments are perceived, compiled and mapped onto a single word fram among the 75 000 or more members that are estimated ta comprise the adult lexicon (Oldfield, 1966).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Influence of Neighborhood Density on Phonetic Categorization in Aphasia

Boyczuk

Baum

1999

Brain and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This manuscript bas been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directIy trom the original or copy submittOO. Thus, sorne thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others May be from any type of computer printer.The quality of tbis reproduction is dependent upon tbe quality of the copY submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment cao adversely affect reproduction.In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be notOO. A1so, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletioD.Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, chans) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning al the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is alsa photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced farm al the back ofthe book.Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographica1ly in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographie prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to arder. UMI

show abstract

Section: Modela Of Ward Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Modela Of Ward Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Influence of Neighborhood Density on Phonetic Categorization in Aphasia

Boyczuk

Baum

1999

Brain and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We have not yet begun, for instance: to assess the whole new range of possible confounds opened up by Marslen-Wilson's observation. (Marslen-Wilson and Welsh 1978) that wlords differ markealy in the position of their recognition point, i.e., the point at which, counting from left t right, they become unique from all other words of the language. The prospects are glootny.…”

Section: Example 3: How To Calculate Word Frequencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Making up materials is a confounded nuisance, or: Will we able to run any psycholinguistic experiments at all in 1990?

Cutler

1981

Cognition

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research in e n;'ive psychology tends to be paradigm-driven at the best of times, and the seven ies haven't even been the beat of times. The most judicious attempts break the mould can be self-defeating; see Lockhart ( 1978), for example, bewailin the fact that the 'levels of processing' approach, devised by Craik an Lockhart (1972) its an attempt to inject more real-life relevance into memory research, was enthusiastically taken up by the field and developzd into a self-perpetuating paradigm.Psycholinguistics exemplifies the generai predicament. Its history over the past decade chronicles 2s much as anything else the continual discovery of new confounds. In order to facilitate this exercise, psycholinguists now conscientiously publish their materials in full. The more materials are published, the more confounds can be and are discovered. (Publish and perish.) In the following p:ges I will illustrate, by way of a few judicious examples, what this mears for the ordinary designer of psycholinguistic experiments; and of course, since I too wish to make an immortal contribution to the psycholinguistic literature, I may not refrain from pointing to a few confounds myself.Example 1: Wbt happened to fhe ambiguity effect in phoneme-monitoring in the early seventies there was held to be an 'ambiguity effect' in yhonememonitoring; when the word preceding the tearget-bearing word was ambiguous, reaction times to detect the target were slower than when the preceding word was unambiguous (Foss 197Q), and this was true even when prior context made it quite clear which meaning of the ambigcc,us word was intended (Foss and Jenkins 1973;Cutler and Foss 1974). The effect was

show abstract

“…On some crucial trials, the names of some of the distractor objects were phonologically similar to the name of the referent. For instance, the target picture beaker was presented with the picture of a competitor that overlapped with the target word at onset, beetle (henceforth, a cohort competitor, predicted to compete by the ''Cohort'' model, e.g., Marslen-Wilson & Welsh, 1978). The probability of fixating each object as the target word was heard was hypothesized to be closely linked to the activation of the lexical representation of this object (i.e., its name).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%