Speech Perception as a Cognitive Process: The Interactive Activation Model

Elman, Jeffrey L.; McClelland, James L.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-608610-2.50013-3

Cited by 65 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On the basis of this assumption, we take the difference in overlap of the N200 effects as a reflection of a difference in the temporal and thus probably also of the functional organization of the meaning-to-sound and sound-to-meaning routes. Specifically, the wide temporal separation of the N200 effects during picture naming implicates serial access to semantic and phonological information, in line with current models of speech production [6,25]. In contrast, the more substantial overlap of the waveforms in the auditory task suggests that phonological and semantic information are processed close in time and that processing is carried out at least partially in parallel.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

“…With regard to the time course of lexical access during auditory comprehension, there is a strong consensus that various lexical entries are activated, at least to some extent, as soon as the first features or phonemes of an incoming word are identified [6,31]. For instance, according to the cohort model [28,30] an incoming phoneme activates all lexical entries that begin with that phoneme (i.e.…”

Section: From Sound-to-meaning: Word Comprehensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Electrophysiological estimates of the time course of semantic and phonological encoding during listening and naming

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current psycholinguistic models suggest that we know what we want to say before we decide how we are going to say it: in other words, for speaking, word meaning is activated prior to information about syntax and phonology. Listening likely involves the reverse order of processes: phonological processing before meaning activation. We examined the relative time courses of phonological and semantic processing during language production and comprehension using event-related brain potentials (ERPs). Participants viewed a series of pictures (with the instruction to covertly name the depicted item), or heard a series of words, and made dual choice Go/noGo decisions based on each item's conceptual (whether the item was an animal or an object) and phonological features (whether the item's German name started with a vowel or a consonant). During picture naming, the N200 component (related to response inhibition) indicated that conceptual processing preceded phonological processing by about 170 ms. During auditory word processing, on the other hand, the brain activity related to these two aspects of comprehension indicated some temporal overlap with the N200 to phonological processing preceding that to semantic processing by only about 85 ms. In sum, the data are compatible with current psycholinguistic models of speech production and comprehension and argue for serial or widely spaced cascaded processing during production but more parallel processing of information during comprehension.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Section: From Sound-to-meaning: Word Comprehensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrophysiological estimates of the time course of semantic and phonological encoding during listening and naming

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 Decodingcontrasting

confidence: 85%

The Architecture of Normal Spoken Language Use

Blanken¹,

Dittmann²,

Grimm³

et al. 1993

Linguistic Disorders and Pathologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This has been attributed to exhaustive search in the mental lexicon (e.g., Forster, 1976). Alternatively, it has been claimed that pseudowords are inhibited by stronger lexical candidates (i.e., words), in particular when they are similar to words (Marslen-Wilson and Welsh, 1978;Elman and McClelland, 1984;Seidenberg and McClelland, 1989). Significant priming showed that participants were sensitive to the semantic relations between related prime-target pairs.…”

Section: Behavioral Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modulation of the Lexical–Semantic Network by Auditory Semantic Priming: An Event-Related Functional MRI Study

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current event-related fMRI study specifies the neuroanatomical correlates of semantic priming and differences in semantic relation types using an auditory primed lexical decision task (LDT). Word pairs consisted of different relation types, associations (key-chain), pure categorical relations (cow-dog), and unrelated words (table-window), as well as word-pseudoword (way-tinne) and pseudowordpseudoword (ahurn-dö va) pairs. The factor lexical status, i.e., the processing of words compared to pseudowords, was associated with activation in the middle temporal gyri and the left striatum. The factor relatedness, i.e., the contrast between unrelated and related target words, was associated with increased activation of the left inferior frontal gyrus, the deep frontal operculum bilaterally, and the middle frontal gyri. A direct contrast between the two semantic relation types indicated that the processing of purely categorical compared to associative information recruits the right precuneus, the isthmus gyrus cinguli, and the cuneus, suggesting more effortful processing of the former information type. The present data show that the factors lexical status, semantic relatedness, and type of semantic relation in a primed LDT modulate the hemodynamic response in cerebral areas that subserve auditory word recognition and subsequent lexical-semantic processing. © 2002 Elsevier Science (USA)

show abstract

Speech Perception as a Cognitive Process: The Interactive Activation Model

Cited by 65 publications

References 54 publications

Electrophysiological estimates of the time course of semantic and phonological encoding during listening and naming

Electrophysiological estimates of the time course of semantic and phonological encoding during listening and naming

The Architecture of Normal Spoken Language Use

Modulation of the Lexical–Semantic Network by Auditory Semantic Priming: An Event-Related Functional MRI Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About