Waiting for lexical access: Cochlear implants or severely degraded input lead listeners to process speech less incrementally

McMurray, Bob; Farris‐Trimble, Ashley; Rigler, Hannah

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.08.013

Cited by 90 publications

(170 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

146

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rather, the robust evidence for immediate integration for other speech cues (McMurray, Clayards, et al, 2008;Reinisch & Sjerps, 2013;Toscano & McMurray, 2012) and factors (Kingston et al, 2016;Mitterer & Reinisch, 2013;Toscano & McMurray, 2015) raises the possibility of a hybrid model combing both implicit memory processes deriving from activation or recurrence, and explicit memory of some kind. It is also consistent with more recent work (McMurray, Farris-Trimble, & Rigler, 2017) showing that pre-lingually deaf cohlear implant users may also delay lexical access to accumulate information, potentially as a way to minimize competition.…”

Section: General Implications For Language Processingsupporting

confidence: 90%

What Are You Waiting For? Real‐Time Integration of Cues for Fricatives Suggests Encapsulated Auditory Memory

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech unfolds over time and the cues for even a single phoneme are rarely available simultaneously. Consequently, to recognize a single phoneme listeners must integrate material over several hundred milliseconds. Prior work contrasts two accounts: 1) a memory buffer account in which listeners accumulate auditory information in memory and only access higher level representations (i.e., lexical representations) when sufficient information has arrived; and 2) an immediate integration scheme in which lexical representations can be partially activated on the basis of early cues and then updated when more information arises. These studies have uniformly shown evidence for immediate integration for a variety of phonetic distinctions. We attempted to extend this to fricatives, a class of speech sounds which requires not only temporal integration of asynchronous cues (the frication, followed by the formant transitions 150–350 msec later), but also integration across different frequency bands, and compensation for contextual factors like coarticulation. Eye-movements in the visual world paradigm and showed clear evidence for a memory buffer. Results were replicated in five experiments, ruling out methodological factors and tying the release of the buffer to the onset of the vowel. These findings support a general auditory account for speech by suggesting that the acoustic nature of particular speech sounds may have large effects on how they are processed. It also has major implications for theories of auditory and speech perception by raising the possibility of a encapsulated memory buffers in early auditory processing.

show abstract

Section: General Implications For Language Processingsupporting

confidence: 90%

What Are You Waiting For? Real‐Time Integration of Cues for Fricatives Suggests Encapsulated Auditory Memory

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…factors raises the possibility of a hybrid model combing both implicit memory processes deriving from activation or recurrence, and explicit memory of some kind. It is also consistent with more recent work (McMurray, Farris-Trimble, & Rigler, 2017) showing that pre-lingually deaf cohlear implant users may also delay lexical access to accumulate information, potentially as a way to minimize competition.…”

Section: General Implications For Language Processingsupporting

confidence: 90%

Preprint: What are you waiting for? Real-time integration of cues for fricatives suggests encapsulated auditory memory.

Galle¹,

Klein-Packard²,

Schreiber³

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech unfolds over time and the cues for even a single phoneme are rarely available simultaneously. Consequently, to recognize a single phoneme listeners must integrate material over several hundred milliseconds. Prior work contrasts two accounts: 1) a memory buffer account in which listeners accumulate auditory information in memory and only access higher level representations (i.e. lexical representations) when sufficient information has arrived; and 2) an immediate integration strategy in which lexical representations can be partially activated on the basis of early cues and then updated when more information arises. These studies have uniformly shown evidence for immediate integration for a variety of phonetic distinctions. We attempted to extend this to fricatives, a class of speech sounds which requires not only temporal integration of asynchronous cues (the frication, followed by the formant transitions 150-350 msec later), but also integration across different frequency bands, and compensation for contextual factors like coarticulation. Experiments employed eye-movements in the visual world paradigm and showed clear evidence for a memory buffer. Results were replicated in five experiments, ruling out methodological factors and tying the release of the buffer to the onset of the vowel. These findings support a general auditory account for speech by suggesting that the acoustic nature of particular speech sounds may have large effects on how they are processed. It also has major implications for theories of auditory and speech perception by raising the possibility of an encapsulated memory buffer in early auditory processing.

show abstract

“…Its popularity can be 19 attributed to its sensitivity to a wide range of cognitive tasks and processing that relate 20 to the concept of listening effort [3,14,15]. Past studies have shown that pupil size 21 varies with different speech intelligibility, hearing impairment, lexical manipulation, 22 masker type, spectral resolution, memory load and divided/focused attention [4,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. 23Typically, when task demands increase, for instance, with lower SNR, degraded spectral 24 resolution or more digits to remember, pupil size increases.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Disentangling listening effort and memory load beyond behavioural evidence: Pupillary response to listening effort during a concurrent memory task

Zhang

Lehmann

Deroche

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research has demonstrated that pupillometry is a robust measure for quantifying listening effort. However, pupillary responses in listening situations where multiple cognitive functions are engaged and sustained over a period of time remain hard to interpret. This limits our conceptualisation and understanding of listening effort in realistic situations, because rarely in everyday life are people challenged by one task at a time. Therefore, the purpose of this experiment was to reveal the dynamics of listening effort in a sustained listening condition using a word repeat and recall task.Words were presented in quiet and speech-shaped noise at different signal-to-noise ratios (SNR). Participants were presented with lists of 10 words, and required to repeat each word after its presentation. At the end of the list, participants either recalled as many words as possible or moved on to the next list. Simultaneously, their pupil dilation was recorded throughout the whole experiment.When only word repeating was required, peak pupil dilation (PPD) was bigger in 0dB versus other conditions; whereas when recall was required, PPD showed no difference among SNR levels and PPD in 0dB was smaller than repeat-only condition.April 29, 2020 1/41Baseline pupil diameter and PPD followed different growth patterns across the 10 serial positions in conditions requiring recall: baseline pupil diameter built up progressively and plateaued in the later positions (but shot up at the onset of recall, i.e. the end of the list); PPD decreased at a pace quicker than in repeat-only condition.The current findings concur with the recent literature in showing that additional cognitive load during a speech intelligibility task could disturb the well-established relation between pupillary response and listening effort. Both the magnitude and temporal pattern of task-evoked pupillary response differ greatly in complex listening conditions, urging for more listening effort studies in complex and realistic listening situations.Introduction 1 Effortless as it seems, everyday communication is cognitively demanding. Degraded 2 speech input induced by adverse listening conditions (e.g., background noise, 3 reverberation etc.) and peripheral hearing loss introduces mismatch between perceived 4 acoustic signals and their canonical forms [1][2][3]. Resolving this mismatch demands more 5 resources from the finite pool of cognitive resources, leading to fewer resources for other 6 cognitive tasks and eventually overload [4,5]. Populations facing long-term auditory 7 challenges are specifically at risk. For instance, people with hearing impairment and 8 particularly those using cochlear implants (CI) often experience high and sustained 9 effort, even when speech recognition performance is similar [6-10]. CI listeners have to 10 engage and deploy more cognitive resources to achieve a satisfactory level of speech 11 communication due to electric hearing. Such elevated and sustained listening effort is 12 associated with detrimental psychosocial consequence...

show abstract

Waiting for lexical access: Cochlear implants or severely degraded input lead listeners to process speech less incrementally

Cited by 90 publications

References 83 publications

What Are You Waiting For? Real‐Time Integration of Cues for Fricatives Suggests Encapsulated Auditory Memory

What Are You Waiting For? Real‐Time Integration of Cues for Fricatives Suggests Encapsulated Auditory Memory

Preprint: What are you waiting for? Real-time integration of cues for fricatives suggests encapsulated auditory memory.

Disentangling listening effort and memory load beyond behavioural evidence: Pupillary response to listening effort during a concurrent memory task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About