Phi-square Lexical Competition Database (Phi-Lex): An online tool for quantifying auditory and visual lexical competition

A widely agreed-upon feature of spoken word recognition is that multiple lexical candidates in memory are simultaneously activated in parallel when a listener hears a word, and that those candidates compete for recognition (Luce, Goldinger, Auer, & Vitevitch, Perception 62:615–625, 2000; Luce & Pisoni, Ear and Hearing 19:1–36, 1998; McClelland & Elman, Cognitive Psychology 18:1–86, 1986). Because the presence of those competitors influences word recognition, much research has sought to quantify the processes of lexical competition. Metrics that quantify lexical competition continuously are more effective predictors of auditory and visual (lipread) spoken word recognition than are the categorical metrics traditionally used (Feld & Sommers, Speech Communication 53:220–228, 2011; Strand & Sommers, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130:1663–1672, 2011). A limitation of the continuous metrics is that they are somewhat computationally cumbersome and require access to existing speech databases. This article describes the Phi-square Lexical Competition Database (Phi-Lex): an online, searchable database that provides access to multiple metrics of auditory and visual (lipread) lexical competition for English words, available at www.juliastrand.com/phi-lex.

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

[2]  Ted J. Strauss,et al.  jTRACE: A reimplementation and extension of the TRACE model of speech perception and spoken word recognition , 2007, Behavior research methods.

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

[4]  E. Owens,et al.  Visemes observed by hearing-impaired and normal-hearing adult viewers. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[5]  S. Gahl.  Time and Thyme Are not Homophones: The Effect of Lemma Frequency on Word Durations in Spontaneous Speech , 2008 .

[6]  M. Sommers,et al.  Lipreading, processing speed, and working memory in younger and older adults. , 2009, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

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

[8]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Erratum: An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 27, 339 (1955)] , 1955 .

[9]  B. Walden,et al.  Effects of training on the visual recognition of consonants. , 1977, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[10]  Curt Burgess,et al.  Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence , 1996 .

[11]  Holly L Storkel,et al.  Methods for minimizing the confounding effects of word length in the analysis of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density. , 2004, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[12]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Recognizing Spoken Words: The Neighborhood Activation Model , 1998, Ear and hearing.

[13]  S. Goldinger,et al.  Priming Lexical Neighbors of Spoken Words: Effects of Competition and Inhibition. , 1989, Journal of memory and language.

[14]  Odette Scharenborg,et al.  Models of spoken-word recognition. , 2012, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[15]  Mitchell Sommers,et al.  There goes the neighborhood: Lipreading and the structure of the mental lexicon , 2011, Speech Commun..

[16]  J. Ziegler,et al.  Orthography shapes the perception of speech: The consistency effect in auditory word recognition , 1998 .

[17]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Phonotactics, Neighborhood Activation, and Lexical Access for Spoken Words , 1999, Brain and Language.

[18]  A A Montgomery,et al.  Auditory and visual contributions to the perception of consonants. , 1974, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[19]  Lynne E. Bernstein,et al.  Modeling the interaction of phonemic intelligibility and lexical structure in audiovisual word recognition , 1998, Speech Commun..

[20]  Johannes C. Ziegler,et al.  Orthographic effects in spoken language: On-line activation or phonological restructuring? , 2009, Brain Research.

[21]  Rebecca Treiman,et al.  The English Lexicon Project , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[22]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Subjective Familiarity of Words: Analysis of the Hoosier Mental Lexicon , 1998 .

[23]  C. Barry,et al.  Written spelling to dictation: Sound-to-spelling regularity affects both writing latencies and durations. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[25]  K. Fleming.  Phonologically Mediated Priming in Spoken and Printed Word Recognition , 1993 .

[26]  D. Balota,et al.  Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[28]  E. T. Auer.  The influence of the lexicon on speech read word recognition: Contrasting segmental and lexical distinctiveness , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[29]  Julia F. Strand,et al.  Sizing up the competition: quantifying the influence of the mental lexicon on auditory and visual spoken word recognition. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  L. Bernstein,et al.  Stimulus-based lexical distinctiveness as a general word-recognition mechanism , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[31]  Mitchell Sommers,et al.  Auditory and Visual Lexical Neighborhoods in Audiovisual Speech Perception , 2007, Trends in amplification.

[32]  Charles Hulme,et al.  Word-frequency and phonological-neighborhood effects on verbal short-term memory. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[33]  P. Luce,et al.  When Words Compete: Levels of Processing in Perception of Spoken Words , 1998 .