Attentional Modulation of Lexical Effects on Speech Perception: Computational and Behavioral Experiments

A number of studies suggest that attention can modulate the extent to which lexical processing influences phonological processing. We propose dampening of activation as a neurophysiologically-plausible computational mechanism that can account for this type of modulation in the context of an interactive model of speech perception. Simulation results from two concrete implementations of this mechanism indicate that each of the implementations can account for attentional modulation of lexical feedback effects but that they have different consequences on the dynamics of lexical activation. We also present a behavioral test of attentional modulation of lexical effects that is not contaminated by task or stimulus effects.

[1]  David C. Plaut,et al.  Strategic Control Over Rate of Processing in Word Reading: A Computational Investigation of the Tempo-Naming Task , 2000 .

[2]  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.

[3]  R. Desimone,et al.  Selective attention gates visual processing in the extrastriate cortex. , 1985, Science.

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

[5]  J D Cohen,et al.  A network model of catecholamine effects: gain, signal-to-noise ratio, and behavior. , 1990, Science.

[6]  Michael S Vitevitch,et al.  The influence of sublexical and lexical representations on the processing of spoken words in English , 2003, Clinical linguistics & phonetics.

[7]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Phoneme identification and the lexicon , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[8]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Computational and behavioral investigations of lexically induced delays in phoneme recognition , 2005 .

[9]  R. Desimone,et al.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. , 1995, Annual review of neuroscience.

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

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

[12]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

[13]  R. Salmelin,et al.  Time course of top-down and bottom-up influences on syllable processing in the auditory cortex. , 2006, Cerebral cortex.

[14]  James L. McClelland,et al.  On the control of automatic processes: a parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. , 1990, Psychological review.

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

[16]  Heike Martensen,et al.  The lexical bias effect is modulated by context, but the standard monitoring account doesn’t fly: Related beply to Baars et al. (1975) ☆ , 2005 .

[17]  A. Treisman,et al.  Voluntary Attention Modulates fMRI Activity in Human MT–MST , 1997, Neuron.

[18]  Arthur G. Samuel,et al.  Lexical inhibition and attentional allocation during speech perception: Evidence from phoneme monitoring , 1997 .

[19]  S. Monsell,et al.  Lexical and sublexical translation of spelling to sound : Strategic anticipation of lexical status , 1992 .

[20]  Peter D. Eimas,et al.  Attention and the role of dual codes in phoneme monitoring , 1990 .