Phoneme identification and the lexicon

In seven experiments reaction time to detect the initial phoneme of words and nonwords was measured. Reaction time advantages for words over nonwords come and go according to the particular characteristics of the experimental situation. One relevant characteristic is degree of task monotony, an effect which is most parsimoniously explained by attention shifting between levels of processing. General classes of models of the relationship between levels of processing in comprehension are discussed in light of the results. Serial models incorporate an attention shift explanation of the monotony effect more elegantly than do interactive models. Alternative serial models are available in the literature in this area. One recent model, which allows only a single outlet point for phoneme detection responses, and hence requires that apparent reaction time advantages for words are artefactual, can be unambiguously rejected on the basis of the present data. It is argued that a serial model involving competition between target detection based on a prelexical representation and detection based on a lexical representation most satisfactorily accounts for the overall pattern of results.

[1]  Arthur G. Samuel,et al.  Phonemic Restoration: Insights From a New Methodology , 1981 .

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

[3]  Donald J. Foss,et al.  Identifying the speech codes , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  M. E. H. Schouten,et al.  The psychophysics of speech perception , 1987 .

[5]  Dennis Norris,et al.  Word recognition: Context effects without priming , 1986, Cognition.

[6]  Morton Ann Gernsbacher,et al.  Cracking the Dual Code: Toward a Unitary Model of Phoneme Identification. , 1983, Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior.

[7]  Anne Cutler,et al.  The syllable's differing role in the segmentation of French and English. , 1986 .

[8]  P. Bertelson,et al.  Does awareness of speech as a sequence of phones arise spontaneously? , 1979, Cognition.

[9]  H. Kucera,et al.  Computational analysis of present-day American English , 1967 .

[10]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Speech Perception as a Cognitive Process: The Interactive Activation Model. , 1983 .

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

[12]  W. Cooper,et al.  Sentence Processing: Psycholinguistic Studies Presented to Merrill Garrett. , 1980 .

[13]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Monitoring sentence comprehension , 1979 .

[14]  M. D. Wang,et al.  Consonant confusions in noise: a study of perceptual features. , 1973, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  J. Fodor,et al.  Semantic focus and sentence comprehension , 1979, Cognition.

[16]  C. Mills,et al.  Effects of the match between listener expectancies and coarticulatory cues on the perception of speech. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  Donald J. Foss,et al.  High-speed memory retrieval with auditorily presented stimuli , 1971 .

[18]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. , 1982, Psychological review.

[19]  Jean E. Newman,et al.  The phonological nature of phoneme monitoring: A critique of some ambiguity studies , 1978 .

[20]  T. Carr,et al.  Perceptual flexibility in word recognition: strategies affect orthographic computation but not lexical access. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  D. Norris,et al.  A language-specific comprehension strategy , 1983, Nature.

[22]  Ulrich Hans Frauenfelder,et al.  The syllable's role in speech segmentation , 1981 .

[23]  David McNeill,et al.  The Perceptual Reality of Phonemes, Syllables, Words, and Sentences. , 1973 .

[24]  V. Fromkin.  Errors in linguistic performance: Slips of the tongue , 1982 .

[25]  D. Swinney,et al.  On the Psychological Reality of the Phoneme: Perception, Identification, and Consciousness. , 1973 .

[26]  Interference between phonemes during phoneme monitoring: evidence for an interactive activation model of speech perception. , 1985 .

[27]  Ulrich Hans Frauenfelder,et al.  The Effect of Lexical Constraints Upon Speech Perception , 1986 .

[28]  R. M. Warren.  Perceptual Restoration of Missing Speech Sounds , 1970, Science.

[29]  W. Marslen-Wilson.  SPEECH UNDERSTANDING AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESS , 1980 .

[30]  J. Morton,et al.  Effect of word transitional probability on phoneme identification , 1976 .

[31]  J. Fodor,et al.  The Psychology of Language , 1974 .

[32]  G. E. Peterson,et al.  Duration of Syllable Nuclei in English , 1960 .

[33]  J. Simon.  Spoken Language Generation and Understanding , 1980 .

[34]  Herbert A. Colle,et al.  Naming in children: Individual differences? , 1973 .

[35]  A Treisman,et al.  Listening to Speech at Two Levels at Once , 1974, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[36]  Robert G Pachella,et al.  The Interpretation of Reaction Time in Information-Processing Research 1 , 1973, Human Information Processing.

[37]  Ulrich H. Frauenfelder,et al.  Phoneme monitoring, syllable monitoring and lexical access. , 1981 .

[38]  G. A. Miller,et al.  An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants , 1955 .

[39]  Jean E. Newman,et al.  Detecting phonemes in fluent speech , 1980 .

[40]  C. Mills.  Effects of context on reaction time to phonemes , 1980 .

[41]  A. Samuel,et al.  Attention within auditory word perception: insights from the phonemic restoration illusion. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[42]  D. J. Foss.  Decision processes during sentence comprehension: Effects of lexical item difficulty and position upon decision times , 1969 .

[43]  D. Burrows,et al.  Chronometric analysis of speech perception , 1973 .

[44]  A. Healy,et al.  Units of speech perception: Phoneme and syllable , 1976 .