auditory word recognition
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/13/2019 Auditory Word Recognition
1/18
9/8/10 Psyc / Ling / Comm 525 Fall 10
Auditory Word Recognition
Clearly, we use top-down processing
The acoustic signal alone is often just not enough
Record people saying:
Predictable: A stitch in time saves nine.
Unpredictable: The next number will be nine.
The ninespliced out of the predictable context is oftenunintelligible in isolation
So, people use context
How and when???
-
8/13/2019 Auditory Word Recognition
2/18
9/8/10 Psyc / Ling / Comm 525 Fall 10
Phoneme Restoration
Replace one phoneme in an utterance with noise
If the phoneme is predictable from context, peoplehear the missing sound (e.g., legi*lature)
If tell them a sound has been replaced, theyre notaccurate at identifying which sound it is
Warren & Warren (1970) Stimuli (acoustically identical except for last word)
It was found that the *eel was on the orange.
It was found that the *eel was on the axle.
It was found that the *eel was on the shoe. It was found that the *eel was on the table.
People believed they had heard the phoneme thatmade sense given the final word
Final word canthave influenced what they heard at *eel
-
8/13/2019 Auditory Word Recognition
3/18
9/8/10 Psyc / Ling / Comm 525 Fall 10
Zwitserlood (1989)(Tests predictions of Cohort Model - Zwitserlood wasMarslen-Wilsons student & this was her dissertation)
Cohort Modelframework
How much information is retrieved about all the
activated cohort members (=competitors)before selection?
How early in word recognition does context
influence processing?
-
8/13/2019 Auditory Word Recognition
4/18
9/8/10 Psyc / Ling / Comm 525 Fall 10
Possible Timecourse of Context Effects
From Zwitserlood (1989)
-
8/13/2019 Auditory Word Recognition
5/18
9/8/10 Psyc / Ling / Comm 525 Fall 10
Methods
People heard sentences that ended with a critical word(e.g., kapitein) Critical words had clear competitors before their uniqueness
point(e.g., kapit aal)
At one of several timepoints during the critical word, avisual word that was semantically related to either the
critical word or its competitor (e.g., schipor geld)appeared on screen Task = lexical decision Cross-modal priming paradigm
Use response to target to tap into processing of prime
Early test points intended to determine how early context canrule out inconsistent competitors Test points determined separately for each critical word by
results ofgating study
-
8/13/2019 Auditory Word Recognition
6/18
9/8/10 Psyc / Ling / Comm 525 Fall 10
Stimuli
Gating study
People heard successively longer fragments of critical words In 3 kinds context Carrier phrase: The next word is kapitein. Neutral context: They mourned the loss of their kapitein. Biasing context: With dampened spirits the men stood around the grave. They
mourned the loss of their kapitein. Control context:The player got the ball and scored the winning goal.
Guessed what the word was
Recognition point= Point in word where everyone identifies it asthe critical word
Often earlier than uniqueness point How much earlier typically depends on degree of contextual constraint
Get to see what competitors are produced before recognition point
-
8/13/2019 Auditory Word Recognition
7/189/8/10 Psyc / Ling / Comm 525 Fall 10
Visual Probe Positions(for each critical word)
Isolation point= Timepoint in word when the critical word first given as aresponse by a participant & after which its the onlyresponse for that participant (mean across participants)
1. Isolation point in Biasing Context (Mean = 133 msec; lexical access)
2. Isolation point in Neutral Context (Mean = 199 msec; lexical access)
3. Isolation point in Carrier Phrase (Mean = 278 msec; selection)
4. Recognition point in Carrier Phrase (Mean = 410 msec; integration)
Probes= schipor geld
-
8/13/2019 Auditory Word Recognition
8/189/8/10 Psyc / Ling / Comm 525 Fall 10
Heres where enough
of word heard to startchoosing target over
competitor
Results
From Zwitserlood (1989)
Probe positions 1 & 2
-Probes related to both
Critical Word & Competitorprimed by hearing some of
Critical word, compared to
Control condition
Probe position 3
- Hear enough word that target
more active than competitor in
Carrier Phrase (= selection)
- Only then does Biasing
Context have an effect
-So, context does not influence
word recognition until enough
bottom-up information to start
selecting word from cohort
133 199 278 410
schip
geld
Heres also where
biasing context firststarts to have effect
-
8/13/2019 Auditory Word Recognition
9/189/8/10 Psyc / Ling / Comm 525 Fall 10
Conclusions
The results of this study led to the revision ofthe Cohort Model such that context effects canonly come in relatively late
-
8/13/2019 Auditory Word Recognition
10/189/8/10 Psyc / Ling / Comm 525 Fall 10
Allopenna, Magnuson, & Tanenhaus (1998)Tests predictions of TRACE Model
An important difference between Cohort & TRACE models
Difference in degree of constraint provided by word onsetscompared to rest of word is bigger in Cohort Model
Previous work had not found any clear effects of competitorsthat didnt share onsets
Allopenna et al. tested this by including competitors that
shared onsets vs rhymes
-
8/13/2019 Auditory Word Recognition
11/189/8/10 Psyc / Ling / Comm 525 Fall 10
Stimulus Words
From Allopenna et al., 1998
-
8/13/2019 Auditory Word Recognition
12/189/8/10 Psyc / Ling / Comm 525 Fall 10
Results of running simulations forthese items in TRACE Model
From Allopenna et al., 1998
Rhyme competitorspeakerbecomes
almost as active as
cohort competitor
beetle, though
later of course
-
8/13/2019 Auditory Word Recognition
13/189/8/10 Psyc / Ling / Comm 525 Fall 10
Methods
- Instructions:Point to the
-Display contains:-Targetbeaker
-And at least one of:
-Cohort competitorbeetle
-Rhyme competitorspeaker-Unrelated wordcarriage
-Participants wore head-mounted
eyetracker- People tend to look at objects
that are mentioned- especially before reaching for them
- How quickly do they look at the
objects related to the target word?
-
8/13/2019 Auditory Word Recognition
14/18
9/8/10 Psyc / Ling / Comm 525 Fall 10
Predicted fixation probabilitiesbased on TRACE simulations
-
8/13/2019 Auditory Word Recognition
15/18
9/8/10 Psyc / Ling / Comm 525 Fall 10
Fixation Probability Results
-
8/13/2019 Auditory Word Recognition
16/18
9/8/10 Psyc / Ling / Comm 525 Fall 10
Comparison of data to model predictions
Target & Cohort CompetitorTarget & Rhyme Competitor
Model slightly overpredicts fixations to Target & slightly underpredicts fixations to
both Cohort & Rhyme competitors
-
8/13/2019 Auditory Word Recognition
17/18
9/8/10 Psyc / Ling / Comm 525 Fall 10
Gating Study
TRACE Model Predictions Object choice (pointing) data
- Maybe results of first experiment specifically due to having competitor objects visually present?- What would happen in a task using same display but that emphasizes auditory word onsets?
-
8/13/2019 Auditory Word Recognition
18/18
9/8/10 Psyc / Ling / Comm 525 Fall 10
Gating StudyFixation & Pointing Results
Model vs Fixation data Model vs Pointing data
- So, its not the presence of the visual object with competitor names that led to theresults in Experiment 1
- Experiment 1 provided the first clear evidence of activation of Rhyme competitors- which lends support to the TRACE Model over the Cohort Model- & which led to further revision of the Cohort Model