Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-c654p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T21:46:27.384Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recognition of isolated words: The dynamics of cohort reduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Sarah C. Wayland ,
Arthur Wingfield  and
Harold Goodglass
Sarah C. Wayland*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Brandeis University
Arthur Wingfield
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Brandeis University and Aphasia Research Center, Department of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine
Harold Goodglass
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Brandeis University and Aphasia Research Center, Department of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine
*
Sarah Wayland, Department of Psychology, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02254
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the experiment reported here, subjects heard the beginnings of spoken words, followed by increasingly larger segments of word-onset information until the words could be correctly identified. The likelihood of word identification at any given point was found to be an inverse power function of the number of words in a dictionary count that began with the same sounds as the stimulus. Subjects' prerecognition responses consisted of words drawn from a wide range of word frequencies. The variance in frequency decreased with increasing amounts of word-onset information. Results are discussed in terms of word-initial phonology as a trigger for response activation.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 1989 , pp. 475 - 487
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Brown, R., & McNeill, D. (1966). The “tip of the tongue” phenomenon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 325–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, R. A., & Jakimik, J. (1980). A model of speech perception. In Cole, R. A. (Ed.), Perception and production of fluent speech. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cotton, S., & Grosjean, F. (1984). The gating paradigm: A comparison of successive and individual presentation formats. Perception and Psychophysics, 35, 41–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forster, K. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. In Wales, R. J. & Walker, E. C. T. (Eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Francis, W., & Kučra, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Goodglass, H. (1980). Disorders of naming following brain injury. American Scientist, 68, 647–655.Google ScholarPubMed
Goodglass, H., Theurkauf, J. C., & Wingfield, A. (1984). Naming latencies as evidence for two modes of lexical access. Applied Psycholinguistics, 5, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodglass, H., Wingfield, A., & Wayland, S. C. (1989). The nature of prolonged word search. Brain and Language, 36, 411–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grosjean, F. (1980). Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm. Perception and Psychophysics, 28, 267–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grosjean, F. (1985). The recognition of words after their acoustic offset: Evidence and implications. Perception and Psychophysics, 38, 299–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grosjean, F., & Gee, J. (1987). Prosodic structure and spoken word recognition. Cognition, 25, 135–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kohn, S. E., Wingfield, A., Menn, L., Goodglass, H., Gleason, J. B., & Hyde, M. (1987). Lexical retrieval: The tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koriat, A., & Lieblich, I. (1974). What does a person in a “TOT” state know that a person in a “don't know” state doesn't know? Memory and Cognition, 2, 647–655.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1984). Function and process in spoken word recognition. In Bouma, H. & Bouwhuis, D. G. (Ed.), Attention and performance X. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition, 25, 71–102.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8, 1–71.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Welsh, A. (1978). Processing interactions and lexical access during word-recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 29–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–86.Google Scholar
Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review, 76, 165–178.Google Scholar
Nooteboom, S. O., & Doodeman, G. J. N. (1984). Speech quality and the gating paradigm. In van den Broeke, M. P. R. & Cohen, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Pease, D., & Goodglass, H. (1978). The effects of cuing on picture naming in aphasia. Cortex, 14, 178–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubin, D. C. (1975). Within word structure in the tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 392–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salasoo, A., & Pisoni, D. (1985). Interaction of knowledge sources in spoken word identification. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 210–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorensen, J. M., Cooper, W. E., & Paccia, J. E. (1978). Speech timing of grammatical categories. Cognition, 6, 135–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stemberger, J. P. (1985). An interactive activation model of language production. In Ellis, A. W. (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language: Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Swinney, D. A. (1982). The structure and time-course of information interaction during speech comprehension: Lexical segmentation, access, and interpretation. In Mehler, J., Walker, E. C. T., & Garrett, M. (Eds.), Perspectives on mental representation: Experimental and theoretical studies of cognitive processes and capacities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I. (1944). The teacher's word book of 30,000 words. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, L. (1984). The structure of the initial cohort: Evidence from gating. Perception and Psychophysics, 36, 417–427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyler, L., & Wessels, J. (1983). Quantifying contextual contributions to word-recognition processes. Perception and Psychophysics, 34, 409–420.Google Scholar
Tyler, L., & Wessels, J. (1985). Is gating an on-line task? Evidence from naming latency data. Perception and Psychophysics, 38, 217–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van der Vlugt, M. J., & Nooteboom, S. G. (1986). Auditory word recognition is not more sensitive to word-initial than to word-final stimulus information. IPO Annual Progress Report (Institute for Perception Research, Eindhoven, The Netherlands), 21, 41–49.Google Scholar
Warren, P., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1987). Continuous uptake of acoustic cues in spoken word recognition. Perception and Psychophysics, 41, 262–275.Google Scholar
Wingfield, A., & Wayland, S. C. (1988). Object-naming in aphasia: Word-initial phonology and response activation. Aphasiology, 2, 423–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar