1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Linguistics
  4. Volume 10, 2024
  5. Article

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 10, 2024

Spoken Word Recognition: A Focus on Plasticity

Abstract

Psycholinguists define spoken word recognition (SWR) as, roughly, the processes intervening between speech perception and sentence processing, whereby a sequence of speech elements is mapped to a phonological wordform. After reviewing points of consensus and contention in SWR, we turn to the focus of this review: considering the limitations of theoretical views that implicitly assume an idealized (neurotypical, monolingual adult) and static perceiver. In contrast to this assumption, we review evidence that SWR is plastic throughout the life span and changes as a function of cognitive and sensory changes, modulated by the language(s) someone knows. In highlighting instances of plasticity at multiple timescales, we are confronted with the question of whether these effects reflect changes in content or in processes, and we consider the possibility that the two are inseparable. We close with a brief discussion of the challenges that plasticity poses for developing comprehensive theories of spoken language processing.

Keyword(s): adaptation, development, multilingualism, plasticity, spoken word recognition, training
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031422-113507
2024-01-16
2024-05-02
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/10/1/annurev-linguistics-031422-113507.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031422-113507&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Allopenna PD, Magnuson J, Tanenhaus MK. 1998. Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: evidence for continuous mapping models. J. Mem. Lang. 38:4419–39 https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2558
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  2. Altmann GT, Kamide Y. 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73:3247–64
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Amano S, Kondo T. 2000. Neighborhood and cohort in lexical processing of Japanese spoken words Paper presented at the ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop (ITRW) on Spoken Word Access Processes Nijmegen, Neth.: May 29–31
  4. Andruski JE, Blumstein SE, Burton M. 1994. The effect of subphonetic differences on lexical access. Cognition 52:3163–87 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90042-6
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. Anglin JM, Miller GA, Wakefield PC. 1993. Vocabulary development: a morphological analysis. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 58:101–186 https://doi.org/10.2307/1166112
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  6. Apfelbaum KS, Goodwin C, Blomquist C, McMurray B. 2023. The development of lexical competition in written- and spoken-word recognition. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 76:1196–219 https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218221090483
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. Arutiunian V, Lopukhina A. 2020. The effects of phonological neighborhood density in childhood word production and recognition in Russian are opposite to English. J. Child Lang. 47:61244–62 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000920000112
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  8. Ben-David BM, Chambers CG, Daneman M, Pichora-Fuller MK, Reingold EM, Schneider BA. 2011. Effects of aging and noise on real-time spoken word recognition: evidence from eye movements. J. Speech Lang. Hearing Res. 54:1243–62 https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0233)
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  9. Best CC, McRoberts GW. 2003. Infant perception of non-native consonant contrasts that adults assimilate in different ways. Lang. Speech 462–3183–216 https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309030460020701
    [Crossref]
  10. Blomquist C, McMurray B. 2023. The development of lexical inhibition in spoken word recognition. Dev. Psychol. 59:1186–206 https://doi.org/10.1037/DEV0001457
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  11. Blumenfeld H, Marian V. 2007. Constraints on parallel activation in bilingual spoken language processing: examining proficiency and lexical status using eye-tracking. Lang. Cogn. Process. 22:5633–60 https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960601000746
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bowers JS. 2000. In defense of abstractionist theories of repetition priming and word identification. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 7:183–99
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bradlow AR, Nygaard L, Pisoni D. 1999. Effects of talker, rate, and amplitude variation on recognition memory for spoken words. Percept. Psychophys. 61:2206–19
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Chambers CG, Tanenhaus MK, Magnuson J. 2004. Actions and affordances in syntactic ambiguity resolution. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 30:3687–96 https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.3.687
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  15. Charles-Luce J, Luce PA. 1990. Similarity neighbourhoods of words in young children's lexicons. J. Child Lang. 17:1205–15 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900013180
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cheimariou S, Kapnoula EC. 2022. Age effects on lexical competition are external to the mental lexicon: evidence from eye-movements Poster presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society Boston: Nov. 17–20
  17. Chéreau C, Gaskell MG, Dumay N. 2007. Reading spoken words: orthographic effects in auditory priming. Cognition 102:3341–60 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COGNITION.2006.01.001
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  18. Dahan D, Magnuson J, Tanenhaus MK, Hogan EM. 2001. Subcategorical mismatches and the time course of lexical access: evidence for lexical competition. Lang. Cogn. Process. 16:5–6507–34 https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960143000074
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  19. Dahan D, Swingley D, Tanenhaus MK, Magnuson J. 2000. Linguistic gender and spoken-word recognition in French. J. Mem. Lang. 42:4465–80 https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2688
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  20. Dijkstra T, Van Hell JG, Brenders P. 2015. Sentence context effects in bilingual word recognition: cognate status, sentence language, and semantic constraint. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 18:4597–613
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Dijkstra T, Wahl A, Buytenhuijs F, Van Halem N, Al-Jibouri Z et al. 2019. Multilink: a computational model for bilingual word recognition and word translation. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 22:4657–79
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Eberhard KM, Spivey-Knowlton MJ, Sedivy JC, Tanenhaus MK. 1995. Eye movements as a window into real-time spoken language comprehension in natural contexts. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 24:6409–36
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Eimas PD, Siqueland ER, Jusczyk P, Vigorito J. 1971. Speech perception in infants. Science 171:3968303–6 https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.171.3968.303
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ellis AW. 1982. Modality-specific repetition priming of auditory word recognition. Curr. Psychol. Res. 2:1–3123–27 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03186752
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  25. Elman JL. 1990. Finding structure in time. Cogn. Sci. 14:2179–211 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1402_1
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  26. Elman JL. 2004. An alternative view of the mental lexicon. Trends Cogn. Sci. 8:7301–6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.003
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  27. Elman JL. 2009. On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: lexical knowledge without a lexicon. Cogn. Sci. 33:4547–82 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01023.x
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  28. Ferretti TR, McRae K, Hatherell A. 2001. Integrating verbs, situation schemas, and thematic role concepts. J. Mem. Lang. 44:4516–47 https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2728
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  29. Flege JE, Bohn O. 2021. The revised Speech Learning Model (SLM-r). Second Language Speech Learning: Theoretical and Empirical Progress R Wayland 3–83 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Frost R. 2012. Towards a universal model of reading. Behav. Brain Sci. 35:5263–79 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11001841
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  31. Gaskell MG, Dumay N. 2003. Lexical competition and the acquisition of novel words. Cognition 89:2105–32 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00070-2
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  32. Gaskell MG, Marslen-Wilson WD. 1997. Integrating form and meaning: a distributed model of speech perception. Lang. Cogn. Process. 12:5–6613–56
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Getzmann S, Hanenberg C, Lewald J, Falkenstein M, Wascher E. 2015. Effects of age on electrophysiological correlates of speech processing in a dynamic “cocktail-party” situation. Front. Neurosci. 9:341 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00341
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  34. Goldinger SD. 1996. Words and voices: episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 22:51166–83
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Goldinger SD. 1998. Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychol. Rev. 105:2251–79
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Gosselin PA, Gagné JP. 2011. Older adults expend more listening effort than young adults recognizing speech in noise. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 54:3944–58 https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2010/10-0069)
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  37. Grosjean F. 1980. Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm. Percept. Psychophys. 28:267–83
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Grosjean F. 2022. The Mysteries of Bilingualism: Unresolved Issues Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
  39. Guediche S, Fiez JA, Holt LL. 2016. Adaptive plasticity in speech perception: effects of external information and internal predictions. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 42:71048–59 https://doi.org/10.1037/XHP0000196
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. Gür E, Samuel AG, Kapnoula EC. 2023. Phonological neighborhood density effects on Spanish spoken word recognition and word learning Poster presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society San Francisco: Nov. 16–19
  41. Gussow AE, Kapnoula E, Molinaro N. 2019. Any leftovers from a discarded prediction? Evidence from eye-movements during sentence comprehension. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 34:81041–58 https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1617887
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  42. Hagoort P, Hald L, Bastiaansen M, Petersson KM. 2004. Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science 304:5669438–41 https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.1095455
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  43. Hallé PA, de Boysson-Bardies B. 1996. The format of representation of recognized words in infants’ early receptive lexicon. Infant Behav. Dev. 19:4463–81 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(96)90007-7
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  44. Hannagan T, Magnuson J, Grainger J. 2013. Spoken word recognition without a TRACE. Front. Psychol. 4:563 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00563
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  45. Harada CN, Natelson Love MC, Triebel KL. 2013. Normal cognitive aging. Clin. Geriatr. Med. 29:4737–52 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cger.2013.07.002
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  46. Hayakawa S, Marian V. 2020. Studying bilingualism through eye-tracking and brain imaging. Bilingual Lexical Ambiguity Resolution RR Heredia, AB Cieślicka 273–99 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A. 2010. The weirdest people in the world?. Behav. Brain Sci. 33:2–361–83
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Hendrickson K, Oleson J, Walker E. 2021. School-age children adapt the dynamics of lexical competition in suboptimal listening conditions. Child Dev 92:2638–49 https://doi.org/10.1111/CDEV.13530
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  49. Heyselaar E, Peeters D, Hagoort P. 2021. Do we predict upcoming speech content in naturalistic environments?. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 36:4440–61 https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2020.1859568/SUPPL_FILE/PLCP_A_1859568_SM1317.DOCX
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  50. Hollich GJ, Jusczyk PW, Luce PA. 2000. Of words, birds, worms, and weeds: infant word learning and lexical neighborhoods. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 22 Merced, CA: Cogn. Sci. Soc. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/13n9q7rj
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Houston DM, Jusczyk PW. 2000. The role of talker-specific information in word segmentation by infants. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 26:51570–82 https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.26.5.1570
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  52. Jackson A, Morton J. 1984. Facilitation of auditory word recognition. Mem. Cogn. 12:6568–74 https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213345/METRICS
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  53. Ju M, Luce PA. 2004. Falling on sensitive ears. Psychol. Sci. 15:5314–18 https://doi.org/10.1111/J.0956-7976.2004.00675.X
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  54. Kapnoula EC, McMurray B. 2016a. Newly learned word forms are abstract and integrated immediately after acquisition. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 23:491–99 https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0897-1
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  55. Kapnoula EC, McMurray B. 2016b. Training alters the resolution of lexical interference: evidence for plasticity of competition and inhibition. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145:18–30 https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000123
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  56. Kapnoula EC, Packard S, Gupta P, McMurray B. 2015. Immediate lexical integration of novel word forms. Cognition 134:85–99 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.09.007
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  57. Kapnoula EC, Samuel AG. 2019. Voices in the mental lexicon: Words carry indexical information that can affect access to their meaning. J. Mem. Lang. 107:111–27 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JML.2019.05.001
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  58. Kapnoula EC, Samuel AG. 2022. Wait long and prosper! Delaying production alleviates its detrimental effect on word learning. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 38:724–44 https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2022.2144917
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  59. Kapnoula EC, Samuel AG. 2023. Sensitivity to L1 subphonemic differences predicts vocabulary size in a foreign language Work. Pap. BCBL Donostia–San Sebastián, Spain: https://osf.io/fytvh?view_only=7cc55f53d19342cc867b953a39b9403e
  60. Kavé G. 2022. Vocabulary changes in adulthood: main findings and methodological considerations. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12820
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  61. Kempley ST, Morton J. 1982. The effects of priming with regularly and irregularly related words in auditory word recognition. Br. J. Psychol. 73:Part 4441–54 https://doi.org/10.1111/J.2044-8295.1982.TB01826.X
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. Kirk NW. 2023. MIND your language (s): recognizing Minority, Indigenous, Non-standard(ized), and Dialect variety usage in “monolinguals. Appl. Psycholinguist. 44:3358–64
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Kraljic T, Samuel AG. 2005. Perceptual learning for speech: Is there a return to normal?. Cogn. Psychol. 51:2141–78
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Kraljic T, Samuel AG. 2006. Generalization in perceptual learning for speech. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 13:2262–68
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Kraljic T, Samuel AG. 2011. Perceptual learning evidence for contextually-specific representations. Cognition 121:3459–65
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Kuhl PK, Williams KA, Lacerda F, Stevens KN, Lindblom B. 1992. Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science 255:5044606–8 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1736364
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  67. Kukona A, Fang S-Y, Aicher KA, Chen H, Magnuson J. 2011. The time course of anticipatory constraint integration. Cognition 119:123–42 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.002
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  68. Kutas M, Delong KA, Smith NJ. 2011. A look around at what lies ahead: prediction and predictability in language processing. Predictions in the Brain: Using Our Past to Generate a Future M Bar 190–207 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Kutlu E, Fell A, Apfelbaum K, McMurray B. 2022. Effects of multilingual and monolingual social networks on speech perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152:4A236 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0016126
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  70. Lahiri A, Marslen-Wilson W. 1991. The mental representation of lexical form: a phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition 38:3245–94 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90008-R
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  71. Leach L, Samuel AG. 2007. Lexical configuration and lexical engagement: when adults learn new words. Cogn. Psychol. 55:4306–53 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.01.001
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  72. Liberman IY, Shankweiler D, Liberman AM. 1989. The Alphabetic Principle and Learning to Read Washington, DC: US Dep. Health Hum. Serv
  73. Luce P, McLennan C, Charles-Luce J. 2012. Abstractness and specificity in spoken word recognition: indexical and allophonic variability in long-term repetition priming. Rethinking Implicit Memory JS Bowers, CJ Marsolek 197–214 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780192632326.003.0009
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  74. Luce P, Pisoni D. 1998. Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood activation model. Ear Hear. 19:11–36
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Luthra S, Peraza-Santiago G, Beeson KN, Saltzman D, Crinnion AM, Magnuson JS. 2021. Robust lexically mediated compensation for coarticulation: Christmash time is here again. Cogn. Sci. 45:4e12962 https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12962
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  76. Magnuson JS. 2008. Nondeterminism, pleiotropy, and single-word reading: theoretical and practical concerns. Single-Word Reading: Behavioral and Biological Perspectives EL Grigorenko, AJ Naples 377–404 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Magnuson JS. 2016. Mapping spoken words to meaning. Speech Perception and Spoken Word Recognition MG Gaskell, J Mirkovic 86–106 New York: Psychol. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Magnuson JS, Crinnion AM. 2022. Spoken word recognition. The Oxford Handbook of the Mental Lexicon A Papafragou, JC Trueswell, LR Gleitman 461–90 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198845003.013.23
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  79. Magnuson JS, Mirman D, Harris HD. 2012. Computational models of spoken word recognition. The Cambridge Handbook of Psycholinguistics M Spivey, K McRae, M Joanisse 76–103 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Magnuson JS, Mirman D, Luthra S, Strauss T, Harris HD. 2018. Interaction in spoken word recognition models: Feedback helps. Front. Psychol. 9:369 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00369
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  81. Magnuson JS, Tanenhaus MK, Aslin RN, Dahan D. 2003. The time course of spoken word learning and recognition: studies with artificial lexicons. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 132:2202–27 https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.2.202
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  82. Magnuson JS, You H, Luthra S, Li M, Nam H et al. 2020. EARSHOT: a minimal neural network model of incremental human speech recognition. Cogn. Sci. 44:4e12823 https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12823
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  83. Markman M. 1987. How children constrain the possible meanings of words. In Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization U Neisser 255–87 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Marr D. 1982. Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information San Francisco: W.H. Freeman
  85. Marslen-Wilson WD. 1987. Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition 25:71–102
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Marslen-Wilson WD. 1993. Issues of process and representation in lexical access. Cognitive Models of Speech Processing: The Second Sperlonga Meeting GTM Altmann, R Shillcock 187–210 Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Marslen-Wilson WD, Warren P. 1994. Levels of perceptual representation and process in lexical access: words, phonemes, and features. Psychol. Rev. 101:4653–75
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Marslen-Wilson WD, Welsh A. 1978. Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cogn. Psychol. 10:129–63 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(78)90018-X
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  89. Marslen-Wilson WD, Zwitserlood P. 1989. Accessing spoken words: the importance of word onsets. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 15:3576–85
     [Google Scholar]
  90. McClelland JL, Elman JL. 1986. The TRACE model of speech perception. Cogn. Psychol. 18:11–86 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90015-0
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  91. McLaughlin DJ, Zink ME, Gaunt L, Spehar B, Van Engen KJ et al. 2022. Pupillometry reveals cognitive demands of lexical competition during spoken word recognition in young and older adults. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 29:1268–80 https://doi.org/10.3758/S13423-021-01991-0
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  92. McMurray B. 2022. The myth of categorical perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152:63819–42 https://doi.org/10.31234/OSF.IO/DQ7EJ
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  93. McMurray B, Danelz A, Rigler H, Seedorff M. 2018. Speech categorization develops slowly through adolescence. Dev. Psychol. 54:81472–91
     [Google Scholar]
  94. McMurray B, Tanenhaus MK, Aslin RN. 2002. Gradient effects of within-category phonetic variation on lexical access. Cognition 86:2B33–42 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00157-9
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  95. McQueen JM, Cutler A, Briscoe T, Norris D. 1995. Models of continuous speech recognition and the contents of the vocabulary. Lang. Cogn. Process. 10:309–31
     [Google Scholar]
  96. McQueen JM, Cutler A, Norris D. 2006. Phonological abstraction in the mental lexicon. Cogn. Sci. 30:61113–26
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Mesgarani N, Cheung C, Johnson K, Chang EF. 2014. Phonetic feature encoding in human superior temporal gyrus. Science 343:61741006–10 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1245994
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  98. Metusalem R, Kutas M, Urbach TP, Hare M, McRae K, Elman JL. 2012. Generalized event knowledge activation during online sentence comprehension. J. Mem. Lang. 66:4545–67 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.01.001
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  99. Miller JL. 1997. Internal structure of phonetic categories. Lang. Cogn. Process. 12:5–6865–70 https://doi.org/10.1080/016909697386754
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  100. Mirman D, McClelland JL, Holt LL. 2006. An interactive Hebbian account of lexically guided tuning of speech perception. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 13:6958–65
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Morais J, Cary L, Alegria J, Bertelson P. 1979. Does awareness of speech as a sequence of phones arise spontaneously?. Cognition 7:4323–31 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(79)90020-9
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  102. Morton J. 1964. A preliminary functional model for language behaviour. Int. Audiol. 3:2216–25 https://doi.org/10.3109/05384916409074089
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  103. Muneaux M, Ziegler JC. 2004. Locus of orthographic effects in spoken word recognition: novel insights from the neighbour generation task. Lang. Cogn. Process. 19:5641–60 https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000052
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  104. Norris D. 1994. Shortlist: a connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition 52:3189–234 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90043-4
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  105. Norris D, McQueen JM. 2008. Shortlist B: a Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychol. Rev. 115:2357–95 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.357
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  106. Norris D, McQueen JM, Cutler A. 2000. Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behav. Brain Sci. 23:3299–325 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00003241
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  107. Norris D, McQueen JM, Cutler A. 2003. Perceptual learning in speech. Cogn. Psychol. 47:2204–38 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00006-9
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  108. Norris D, McQueen JM, Cutler A. 2018. Commentary on “Interaction in spoken word recognition models. Front. Psychol. 9:1568 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01568
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  109. Oleson JJ, Cavanaugh JE, McMurray B, Brown G. 2017. Detecting time-specific differences between temporal nonlinear curves: analyzing data from the visual world paradigm. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 26:62708–25 https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280215607411
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  110. Pattamadilok C, Morais J, De Vylder O, Ventura P, Kolinsky R. 2009. The orthographic consistency effect in the recognition of French spoken words: an early developmental shift from sublexical to lexical orthographic activation. Appl. Psycholinguist. 30:3441–62 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716409090225
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  111. Perre L, Pattamadilok C, Montant M, Ziegler JC. 2009. Orthographic effects in spoken language: on-line activation or phonological restructuring?. Brain Res. 1275:73–80 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BRAINRES.2009.04.018
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  112. Perre L, Ziegler JC. 2008. On-line activation of orthography in spoken word recognition. Brain Res. 1188:1132–38 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BRAINRES.2007.10.084
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  113. Pickering MJ, Gambi C. 2018. Predicting while comprehending language: a theory and review. Psychol. Bull. 144:101002–44 https://doi.org/10.1037/BUL0000158
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  114. Pierrehumbert JB. 2016. Phonological representation: beyond abstract versus episodic. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 2:33–52
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Port R. 2007. How are words stored in memory? Beyond phones and phonemes. New Ideas Psychol. 25:2143–70 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEWIDEAPSYCH.2007.02.001
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  116. Pratt AC, Brady S. 1988. Relation of phonological awareness to reading disability in children and adults. J. Educ. Psychol. 80:3319–23 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.319
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  117. Protopapas A, Kapnoula E. 2016. Short-term and long-term effects on visual word recognition. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 42:4542–65 https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000191
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  118. Pustejovsky J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  119. Revill K, Spieler D. 2012. The effect of lexical frequency on spoken word recognition in young and older listeners. Psychol. Aging 27:180–87
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Rigler H, Farris-Trimble A, Greiner L, Walker J, Tomblin JB, McMurray B. 2015. The slow developmental time course of real-time spoken word recognition. Dev. Psychol. 51:121690–703 https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000044
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  121. Salverda AP, Dahan D, McQueen JM. 2003. The role of prosodic boundaries in the resolution of lexical embedding in speech comprehension. Cognition 90:51–89
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Samuel AG. 1977. The effect of discrimination training on speech perception: noncategorical perception. Percept. Psychophys. 22:4321–30 https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199697
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  123. Samuel AG. 1982. Phonetic prototypes. Percept. Psychophys. 31:4307–14 https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202653
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  124. Sarrett ME, McMurray B, Kapnoula E. 2020. Dynamic EEG analysis during language comprehension reveals interactive cascades between perceptual processing and sentential expectations. Brain Lang. 211:104875 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2020.104875
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  125. Sarrett ME, Shea C, McMurray B. 2022. Within- and between-language competition in adult second language learners: implications for language proficiency. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 37:2165–81
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Schacter DL, Church BA. 1992. Auditory priming: implicit and explicit memory for words and voices. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 18:5915–30 https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.18.5.915
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  127. Sedivy JC, Tanenhaus MK, Chambers CG, Carlson GN. 1999. Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition 71:2109–47
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Seedorff M, Oleson J, McMurray B. 2018. Detecting when timeseries differ: using the Bootstrapped Differences of Timeseries (BDOTS) to analyze Visual World Paradigm data (and more). J. Mem. Lang. 102:55–67 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.05.004
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  129. Seidenberg MS, Tanenhaus MK. 1979. Orthographic effects on rhyme monitoring. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 5:6546–54 https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.5.6.546
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  130. Share DL. 1995. Phonological recoding and self-teaching: sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition 55:2151–218 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  131. Share DL. 2004. Orthographic learning at a glance: on the time course and developmental onset of self-teaching. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 87:4267–98 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JECP.2004.01.001
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  132. Shook A, Marian V. 2016. The influence of native-language tones on lexical access in the second language. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 139:63102–9 https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4953692
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  133. Shook A, Marian V. 2019. Covert co-activation of bilinguals’ non-target language: phonological competition from translations. Linguist. Approaches Biling. 9:2228–52 https://doi.org/10.1075/LAB.17022.SHO
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  134. Singh L. 2008. Influences of high and low variability on infant word recognition. Cognition 106:2833–70
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Singh L, Morgan JL, White KS. 2004. Preference and processing: the role of speech affect in early spoken word recognition. J. Mem. Lang. 51:2173–89
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Sommers MS. 1996. The structural organization of the mental lexicon and its contribution to age-related declines in spoken-word recognition. Psychol. Aging 11:2333–41 https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.11.2.333
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  137. Sommers MS, Danielson SM. 1999. Inhibitory processes and spoken word recognition in young and older adults: the interaction of lexical competition and semantic context. Psychol. Aging 14:3458–72
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Spivey M, Marian V. 1999. Cross talk between native and second languages: partial activation of an irrelevant lexicon. Psychol. Sci. 10:3281–84
     [Google Scholar]
  139. Stager C, Werker J. 1997. Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than in word-learning tasks. Nature 388:6640381–82
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Storkel H. 2002. Restructuring of similarity neighbourhoods in the developing mental lexicon. J. Child Lang. 29:2251–74
     [Google Scholar]
  141. Storkel H, Armbrüster J, Hogan TP. 2006. Differentiating phonotactic probability and neighborhood density in adult word learning. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 49:61175–92 https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/085
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  142. Streeter L, Nigro G. 1979. The role of medial consonant transitions in word perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 65:61533–41
     [Google Scholar]
  143. Swank LK, Catts HW. 1994. Phonological awareness and written word decoding. Lang. Speech Hear. Serv. Sch. 25:19–14 https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461.2501.09
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  144. Swingley D, Aslin R. 2000. Spoken word recognition and lexical representation in very young children. Cognition 76:147–66
     [Google Scholar]
  145. Tanenhaus MK, Spivey-Knowlton MJ, Eberhard KM, Sedivy JC. 1995. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268:52171632–34
     [Google Scholar]
  146. Toscano JC, McMurray B, Dennhardt J, Luck SJ. 2010. Continuous perception and graded categorization: electrophysiological evidence for a linear relationship between the acoustic signal and perceptual encoding of speech. Psychol. Sci. 21:101532–40 https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610384142
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  147. Tun PA, O'Kane G, Wingfield A. 2002. Distraction by competing speech in young and older adult listeners. Psychol. Aging 17:3453–67 https://doi.org/10.1037//0882-7974.17.3.453
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  148. Ventura P, Kolinsky R, Pattamadilok C, Morais J. 2008. The developmental turnpoint of orthographic consistency effects in speech recognition. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 100:2135–45 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JECP.2008.01.003
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  149. Ventura P, Morais J, Kolinsky R. 2007. The development of the orthographic consistency effect in speech recognition: from sublexical to lexical involvement. Cognition 105:3547–76 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COGNITION.2006.12.005
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  150. Vitevitch M, Rodríguez E. 2005. Neighborhood density effects in spoken word recognition in Spanish. J. Multiling. Commun. Disord. 3:164–73 https://doi.org/10.1080/14769670400027332
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  151. Vroomen J, de Gelder B. 1995. Metrical segmentation and lexical inhibition in spoken word recognition. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 21:198–108 https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.21.1.98
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  152. Werker JF, Tees RC. 1984. Cross-language speech perception: evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behav. Dev. 7:49–63
     [Google Scholar]
  153. Wicha NYY, Bates EA, Moreno EM, Kutas M. 2003. Potato not Pope: human brain potentials to gender expectation and agreement in Spanish spoken sentences. Neurosci. Lett. 346:3165–68
     [Google Scholar]
  154. Wicha NYY, Moreno EM, Kutas M. 2004. Anticipating words and their gender: an event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 16:71272–88 https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929041920487
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  155. Wingfield A, Aberdeen JS, Stine EA. 1991. Word onset gating and linguistic context in spoken word recognition by young and elderly adults. J. Gerontol. 46:3P127–29 https://doi.org/10.1093/GERONJ/46.3.P127
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  156. Ziegler JC, Ferrand L. 1998. Orthography shapes the perception of speech: the consistency effect in auditory word recognition. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 5:4683–89 https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208845/METRICS
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  157. Ziegler JC, Goswami U. 2005. Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: a psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychol. Bull. 131:13–29 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  158. Ziegler JC, Muneaux M, Grainger J. 2003. Neighborhood effects in auditory word recognition: phonological competition and orthographic facilitation. J. Mem. Lang. 48:4779–93 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00006-8
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  159. Ziegler JC, Petrova A, Ferrand L. 2008. Feedback consistency effects in visual and auditory word recognition: Where do we stand after more than a decade?. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 34:3643–61 https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.643
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031422-113507
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error