DE eng

Search in the Catalogues and Directories

Page: 1 2 3 4
Hits 41 – 60 of 67

41
Reading through a noisy channel : why there's nothing special about the perception of orthography
Norris, Dennis; Kinoshita, Sachiko. - : American Psychological Association, 2012
BASE
Show details
42
Transposed-letter priming effect in Hebrew in the same-different task
Kinoshita, Sachiko; Norris, Dennis; Siegelman, Noam. - : Psychology Press, 2012
BASE
Show details
43
Task-dependent masked priming effects in visual word recognition
Kinoshita, Sachiko; Norris, Dennis. - : Frontiers Research Foundation, 2012
BASE
Show details
44
Task-Dependent Masked Priming Effects in Visual Word Recognition
Kinoshita, Sachiko; Norris, Dennis. - : Frontiers Research Foundation, 2012
BASE
Show details
45
Is morpho-orthographic decomposition purely orthographic? Evidence from masked priming in the same-different task
BASE
Show details
46
Does the familiarity bias hypothesis explain why there is no masked priming for "NO" decisions?
Kinoshita, Sachiko; Norris, Dennis. - : Springer New York LLC, 2011
BASE
Show details
47
Masked priming effect reflects evidence accumulated by the prime
Kinoshita, Sachiko; Norris, Dennis. - : Psychology Press, 2010
BASE
Show details
48
How abstract phonemic categories are necessary for coping with speaker-related variation
Cutler, Anne; Eisner, Frank; McQueen, James M.. - : Germany, Mouton de Gruyter, 2010
BASE
Show details
49
Transposed-Letter Priming of Prelexical Orthographic Representations
Kinoshita, Sachiko; Norris, Dennis. - : American Psychological Association, 2009
BASE
Show details
50
Perception as evidence accumulation and Bayesian inference: Insights from masked priming
Norris, Dennis; Kinoshita, Sachiko. - : American Psychological Association, 2008
BASE
Show details
51
A unified framework for immediate serial recall, Hebb effects, and the learning of phonological word-forms
BASE
Show details
52
Are there really interactive processes in speech perception?
McQueen, James M.; Cutler, Anne; Norris, Dennis. - : U.K, Elsevier, 2006
Abstract: On both empirical and theoretical grounds, we argue that the affirmative answer of McClelland et al. [1] is premature. Contrary to the predictions of the TRACE model, which postulates interactive processing in speech perception, there is no lexically mediated compensation for coarticulation when there is a lexical bias in interpretation of the preceding fricative [2]. This cannot be dismissed with criticism of the fricative-final lexical contexts and their distance from the stops (Box 3 in Ref. [1]). The contexts in Ref. [2] were effective – there was a lexical bias on the fricatives; and the timing was appropriate – there was a compensation effect with the same fricative-stop gap in the nonword-context conditions. Furthermore, we suggest that the evidence on compensation that purports to show interaction is unconvincing. Some apparent lexical effects 3 and 4 A.G. Samuel and M.A. Pitt, Lexical activation (and other factors) can mediate compensation for coarticulation, J. Mem. Lang. 48 (2003), pp. 416–434. Abstract | PDF (256 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (22)4 are possibly higher-order transitional-probability effects [2]. Others perhaps reflect learning about experiment-internal biases; indeed, the effect in Ref. [5] did not seem to increase over time, but this null result is not definitive because learning could have occurred in the practice block. Perceptual retuning can explain the selective-adaptation data (e.g. Ref. [6]). Retuning of phonetic perception can arise after only ten critical trials [7]; selective adaptation effects depend on many more exposures (e.g. 768 in Ref. [6]). Thus, selective adaptation can follow from perceptual retuning. After listeners learn that the ambiguous phoneme is /s/, for example, it acts as an adaptor, reducing the number of /s/ responses to the test stimuli. Further analysis of the data in Ref. [6] reveals exactly this: early blocks of trials show retuning, whereas later blocks show adaptation (Figure 3 in Ref. [8]). The evidence on whether there is on-line lexical influence on prelexical processes is thus inconclusive. However, consensus has been reached on the existence of lexical feedback for learning 7 and 9 and, as just shown, this can also explain apparent evidence of on-line interaction. Why might there be feedback that affects learning but not processing? Feedback for learning is helpful because it enables the listener to adjust to speaker-related variability [9], but feedback in on-line processing is not beneficial and could even be harmful [10]. These views are based on rational analysis [11]. Analyzing the nature of the perceptual task generated a hypothesis (that was confirmed in Ref. [9]) about how speech perception should operate. According to the rational-analysis perspective, and McClelland et al. [1], the goal of the speech-recognition device is optimal interpretation. Bayesian methods provide the optimal way to combine independent sources of information for perceptual decisions. However, if interaction were permitted between information sources, those sources would no longer be independent and the decision would be suboptimal [10]. Interaction, therefore, makes optimal interpretation harder. If an interactive algorithm could be made to compute the correct Bayesian decision function, the interaction would be a property only of that algorithm, not of the underlying computation. What would be computed is exactly what a non-interactive system would compute. Hence, commitment to the computational principle of optimality requires no commitment to the algorithmic principle of interactive processing. No data require direct influences of the lexicon on prelexical mechanisms, and evidence and computational principles argue against interactive processing. Further evidence of lexical mediation of prelexical processes might yet appear. Indeed, if lexical retuning were implemented in the TRACE model using Hebbian learning 9 and 12, there could well be on-line processing effects. Such demonstrations would be further evidence of feedback in learning and not evidence of interactive processing, which, other than potentially as part of a learning mechanism, serves no useful function.
Keyword: 200499 - Linguistics not elsewhere classified; psycholinguistics; speech perception
URL: http://handle.uws.edu.au:8081/1959.7/34000
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.10.004
BASE
Hide details
53
The dynamic nature of speech perception
McQueen, James M.; Norris, Dennis; Cutler, Anne. - : U.K, Kingston Press Services, 2006
BASE
Show details
54
Phonological abstraction in the mental lexicon
McQueen, James M.; Cutler, Anne; Norris, Dennis. - : U.K, Elsevier, 2006
BASE
Show details
55
Phonological and conceptual activation in speech comprehension
Norris, Dennis; Cutler, Anne; McQueen, James M.. - : U.S.A, Academic Press, 2006
BASE
Show details
56
Lexically-guided retuning of letter perception
Norris, Dennis; Butterfield, Sally; McQueen, James M.. - : U.K, Psychology Press, 2006
BASE
Show details
57
La perception de la parole en espagnol : un cas particulier? ; (Speech perception in Spanish : a special case?)
Cutler, Anne (R12329); Mister, E.; Norris, Dennis. - : Belgium, De Boeck, 2004
BASE
Show details
58
Phonemic repertoire and similarity within the vocabulary
Cutler, Anne; Norris, Dennis; Max Planck Institut für Psycholinguistik (Nijmegen, Netherlands). - : Korea, Sunjijn, 2004
BASE
Show details
59
Lexical viability constraints on speech segmentation by infants
In: Cognitive psychology. - Amsterdam : Elsevier 46 (2003) 1, 65-97
BLLDB
Show details
60
Perceptual learning in speech
In: Cognitive psychology. - Amsterdam : Elsevier 47 (2003) 2, 204-238
BLLDB
Show details

Page: 1 2 3 4

Catalogues
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bibliographies
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Linked Open Data catalogues
0
Online resources
0
0
0
0
Open access documents
65
0
0
0
0
© 2013 - 2024 Lin|gu|is|tik | Imprint | Privacy Policy | Datenschutzeinstellungen ändern