Flow of information in the spoken word recognition system

Spoken word recognition consists of two major component processes. First, at the prelexical stage, an abstract description of the utterance is generated from the information in the speech signal. Second, at the lexical stage, this description is used to activate all the words stored in the mental lexicon which match the input. These multiple candidate words then compete with each other. We review evidence which suggests that positive (match) and negative (mismatch) information of both a segmental and a suprasegmental nature is used to constrain this activation and competition process. We then ask whether, in addition to the necessary influence of the prelexical stage on the lexical stage, there is also feedback from the lexicon to the prelexical level. In two phonetic categorization experiments, Dutch listeners were asked to label both syllable-initial and syllable-final ambiguous fricatives (e.g., sounds ranging from [f] to [s]) in the word-nonword series maf-mas, and the nonword-word series jaf-jas. They tended to label the sounds in a lexically consistent manner (i.e., consistent with the word endpoints of the series). These lexical effects became smaller in listeners' slower responses, even when the listeners were put under pressure to respond as fast as possible. Our results challenge models of spoken word recognition in which feedback modulates the prelexical analysis of the component sounds of a word whenever that word is heard.

[1]  M. Turvey,et al.  Initial phonemes are detected faster in spoken words than in spoken nonwords , 1976 .

[2]  W. Ganong Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  J. L. Miller,et al.  Effects of speaking rate and lexical status on phonetic perception. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  R. Fox Effect of lexical status on phonetic categorization. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  Ann Cutler,et al.  Prosody in the Comprehension of Spoken Language: A Literature Review , 1997, Language and speech.

[6]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Cognitive penetration of the mechanisms of perception: Compensation for coarticulation of lexically restored phonemes , 1988 .

[7]  Dawn G. Blasko,et al.  Similarity Mapping in Spoken Word Recognition , 1997 .

[8]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Can lexical knowledge modulate prelexical representations over time , 2001 .

[9]  A. Samuel Lexical Activation Produces Potent Phonemic Percepts , 1997, Cognitive Psychology.

[10]  A. Cutler Forbear is a Homophone: Lexical Prosody Does Not Constrain Lexical Access , 1986 .

[11]  M. Pitt The locus of the lexical shift in phoneme identification. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[12]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Integrating Form and Meaning: A Distributed Model of Speech Perception. , 1997 .

[13]  James L. McClelland The Case for Interactionism in Language Processing. , 1987 .

[14]  A G Samuel,et al.  Knowing a Word Affects the Fundamental Perception of The Sounds Within it , 2001, Psychological science.

[15]  C M Connine,et al.  Interactive use of lexical information in speech perception. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  A. Samuel Does lexical information influence the perceptual restoration of phonemes , 1996 .

[17]  M. Pitt,et al.  Is Compensation for Coarticulation Mediated by the Lexicon , 1998 .

[18]  Ulrich H. Frauenfelder,et al.  Bottom-up inhibition in lexical selection: Phonological mismatch effects in spoken word recognition , 2001 .

[19]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The TRACE model of speech perception , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[20]  S. Goldinger,et al.  Phonetic priming, neighborhood activation, and PARSYN , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[21]  D Norris,et al.  Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary , 2000, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[22]  A. Cutler,et al.  Voornaam is not (really) a Homophone: Lexical Prosody and Lexical Access in Dutch , 2001, Language and speech.

[23]  P. Friederici Language Comprehension: A Biological Perspective , 1999, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[24]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Lexical influence in phonetic decision-making: Evidence from subcategorical mismatches , 1999 .

[25]  A G Samuel,et al.  An empirical and meta-analytic evaluation of the phoneme identification task. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  S. Blumstein,et al.  Lexical effects on the phonetic categorization of speech: the role of acoustic structure. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  J. McQueen The influence of the lexicon on phonetic categorization: stimulus quality in word-final ambiguity. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[28]  J. Sawusch,et al.  Lexical neighborhood effects in phonetic processing. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[29]  M. Coltheart Attention and Performance XII: The Psychology of Reading , 1987 .

[30]  D. Massaro Testing between the TRACE model and the fuzzy logical model of speech perception , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[31]  D. Norris Shortlist: a connectionist model of continuous speech recognition , 1994, Cognition.

[32]  Ulrich H. Frauenfelder,et al.  The Recognition of Spoken Words , 1999 .

[33]  A. Samuel Phonemic restoration: insights from a new methodology. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[34]  S. Soto-Faraco,et al.  Journal of Memory and Language , 2001 .

[35]  W Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Levels of perceptual representation and process in lexical access: words, phonemes, and features. , 1994, Psychological review.

[36]  Z. Pylyshyn Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. , 1999, The Behavioral and brain sciences.