Distributional analyses in auditory lexical decision: Neighborhood density and word-frequency effects

In the present article, the effects of phonological neighborhood density and word frequency in spoken word recognition were examined using distributional analyses of response latencies in auditory lexical decision. A density × frequency interaction was observed in mean latencies; frequency effects were larger for low-density words than for high-density words. Distributional analyses further revealed that for low-density words, frequency effects were reflected in both distributional shifting and skewing, whereas for high-density words, frequency effects were purely mediated by distributional skewing. The results suggest that word frequency plays a role in early auditory word recognition only when there is relatively little competition between similar-sounding words, and that frequency effects in high-density words reflect postlexical checking.

[1]  Zig Ziglar,et al.  Head Start , 1995 .

[2]  S. Andrews,et al.  Distinguishing common and task-specific processes in word identification: a matter of some moment? , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[3]  D. Balota,et al.  Word frequency, repetition, and lexicality effects in word recognition tasks: beyond measures of central tendency. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

[5]  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.

[6]  J. Ziegler,et al.  Neighborhood effects in auditory word recognition: Phonological competition and orthographic facilitation. , 2003 .

[7]  S. B. Vincent The function of the vibrissae in the behavior of the white rat , 1912 .

[8]  D. Mewhort,et al.  Analysis of Response Time Distributions: An Example Using the Stroop Task , 1991 .

[9]  M. Coltheart,et al.  358,534 nonwords: The ARC Nonword Database , 2002, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

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

[11]  P. Luce,et al.  Probabilistic Phonotactics and Neighborhood Activation in Spoken Word Recognition , 1999 .

[12]  Jeffrey N. Rouder,et al.  A note on the sampling properties of the Vincentizing (quantile averaging) procedure , 2004 .

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

[14]  M. Nissen,et al.  Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[15]  David A. Balota,et al.  Beyond mean response latency: Response time distributional analyses of semantic priming , 2008 .

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