Phonetic Biases in Voice Key Response Time Measurements

Voice response time (RT) measurements from 4 large-scale studies of oral reading of English monosyllables were analyzed for evidence that voice key measurements are biased by the leading phonemes of the response. Words with different initial phonemes did have significantly different RTs. This effect persisted after contributions of nine covariables, such as frequency, length, and spelling consistency, were factored out, as well as when variance associated with error rate was factored out. A breakdown by phoneme showed that voiceless, posterior, and obstruent consonants were detected later than others. The second phonemes of the words also had an effect on RT: Words with high or front vowels were detected later. Phoneme-based biases due to voice keys were large (range about 100 ms) and pervasive enough to cause concern in interpreting voice RT measurements. Techniques are discussed for minimizing the impact of these biases.

[1]  David A. Balota,et al.  Bringing Computational Models of Word Naming Down to the Item Level , 1997 .

[2]  N. Umeda.  Consonant duration in American English , 1977 .

[3]  A. Cutler.  Making up materials is a confounded nuisance, or: Will we able to run any psycholinguistic experiments at all in 1990? , 1981, Cognition.

[4]  Duration of [s] in [s]-plosive blends. , 1970, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  C. F. Sacia,et al.  The power of fundamental speech sounds , 1926 .

[6]  Don L. Scarborough,et al.  Frequency and Repetition Effects in Lexical Memory. , 1977 .

[7]  Raymond D. Kent,et al.  Acoustic Analysis of Speech , 2009 .

[8]  Christopher T. Kello,et al.  Strategic control in word reading: evidence from speeded responding in the tempo-naming task. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[9]  Sally Andrews,et al.  Rule and analogy mechanisms in reading nonwords: Hough dou peapel rede gnew wirds? , 1998 .

[10]  Tamiko Azuma,et al.  Open wide and say blah! attentional dynamics of delayed naming , 1997 .

[11]  Jackie Masterson,et al.  Are children's representations of words distributed? effects of orthographic neighbourhood size, consistency and regularity of naming , 1994 .

[12]  Andrew W. Ellis,et al.  ROLES OF WORD FREQUENCY AND AGE OF ACQUISITION IN WORD NAMING AND LEXICAL DECISION , 1995 .

[13]  K. Forster,et al.  Lexical Access and Naming Time. , 1973 .

[14]  H. Nusbaum.  Sizing up the Hoosier Mental Lexicon: Measuring the Familiarity of 20,000 Words, Research on Speech Perception , 1984 .

[15]  Robert L. Solso,et al.  Positional frequency and versatility of bigrams for two- through nine-letter English words , 1980 .

[16]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  On the complexities of measuring naming. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  Lee H. Wurm,et al.  Conditional Root Uniqueness Points: Psychological Validity and Perceptual Consequences , 2001 .

[18]  R. Treiman,et al.  Syllable Structure and the Distribution of Phonemes in English Syllables , 1997 .

[19]  D. Klatt.  Voice onset time, frication, and aspiration in word-initial consonant clusters. , 1975, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[20]  Max Coltheart,et al.  Access to the internal lexicon , 1977 .

[21]  Christopher T. Kello,et al.  Effect of onset cluster complexity in speeded naming: A test of rule-based approaches. , 1999 .

[22]  B. Bergum,et al.  Attention and Performance VI , 1978 .

[23]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles , 1988 .

[24]  Anne-Catherine Bachoud-Lévi,et al.  Where is the length effect? A cross-linguistic study. , 1998 .

[25]  D. Balota,et al.  Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  Rebecca Treiman,et al.  Relationships between sounds and letters in English monosyllables , 2001 .

[27]  Elizabeth Bates,et al.  Gender and lexical access in Italian , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[28]  R. Peereman,et al.  Is perception a two-way street ?: The case of feedback consistency in visual word recognition , 1998 .

[29]  Alain Content,et al.  The grapho-phonological system of written French: Statistical analysis and empirical validation , 1999, ACL.

[30]  K. Izdebski.  The Physics of Speech , 1980 .

[31]  Zenzi M. Griffin,et al.  Constraint, Word Frequency, and the Relationship between Lexical Processing Levels in Spoken Word Production , 1998 .

[32]  Christopher T. Kello,et al.  Initial phoneme versus whole-word criterion to initiate pronunciation: Evidence based on response latency and initial phoneme duration. , 1998 .

[33]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  The special role of rimes in the description, use, and acquisition of English orthography. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[34]  Takao Fushimi,et al.  Consistency, frequency, and lexicality effects in naming Japanese Kanji. , 1999 .

[35]  J. Mullennix,et al.  Word familiarity and frequency in visual and auditory word recognition. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[36]  K. Stanovich,et al.  On priming by a sentence context. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[37]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Implicit speech: Mechanism in perceptual encoding? , 1970 .

[38]  G. Waters,et al.  Reading words aloud-a mega study , 1989 .

[39]  D B Pisoni,et al.  Lexical familiarity and processing efficiency: individual differences in naming, lexical decision, and semantic categorization. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[40]  D. Klatt.  The duration of (s) in English words. , 1974, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[41]  D. Klatt.  Linguistic uses of segmental duration in English: acoustic and perceptual evidence. , 1976, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[42]  E. Vajda.  Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A Guide to the Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet , 2000 .