Where is the disadvantage for reduced pronunciation variants in spoken-word recognition? On the neglected role of the decision stage in the processing of word-form variation

References

• Atkinson, R. C., & Juola, J. F. (1973). Factors influencing speed and accuracy of word recognition. In S. Kornblum (Ed.), Attention and performance IV (pp. 583–612). New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H., & Milin, P. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12–28.
   Google Scholar
• Balota, D. A., & Chumbley, J. I. (1984). Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(3), 340–357. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.10.3.340
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balota, D. A., & Spieler, D. H. (1999). Word frequency, repetition, and lexicality effects in word recognition tasks: Beyond measures of central tendency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(1), 32–55. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.128.1.32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., & Watson, J. M. (2008). Beyond mean response latency: Response time distributional analyses of semantic priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 495–523. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D. M. (2005). Fitting linear mixed models in R: Using the lme4 package. R News: The Newsletter of the R Project, 5(1), 27–30.
   Google Scholar
• Bates, E., & Liu, H. (1996). Cued shadowing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(6), 577–582. doi: 10.1080/016909696386962
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2014). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer.
   Google Scholar
• Brand, S., & Ernestus, M. (2018). Listeners’ processing of a given reduced word pronunciation variant directly reflects their exposure to this variant: Evidence from native listeners and learners of French. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(5), 1240–1259. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2017.1313282
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwer, S., Mitterer, H., & Huettig, F. (2010). Shadowing reduced speech and alignment. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(1), EL32–EL37. doi: 10.1121/1.3448022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bürki, A., Viebahn, M. C., Racine, I., Mabut, C., & Spinelli, E. (2018). Intrinsic advantage for canonical forms in spoken word recognition: Myth or reality? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(4), 494–511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cherry, C. (1957). On human communication. New York: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Cleland, A. A., Gaskell, M. G., Quinlan, P. T., & Tamminen, J. (2006). Frequency effects in spoken and visual word recognition: Evidence from dual-task methodologies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(1), 104–119. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coenen, E., Zwitserlood, P., & Bölte, J. (2001). Variation and assimilation in German: Consequences for lexical access and representation. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16(5–6), 535–564.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993). Psyscope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 25, 257–271.
   Google Scholar
• Connine, C. M. (2004). It’s not what you hear but how often you hear it: On the neglected role of phonological variant frequency in auditory word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 1084–1089. doi: 10.3758/BF03196741
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connine, C. M., Titone, D., & Wang, J. (1993). Auditory word recognition: Extrinsic and intrinsic effects of word frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(1), 81–94. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.19.1.81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, A., Treiman, R., & van Ooijen, B. (2010). Strategic deployment of orthographic knowledge in phoneme detection. Language and Speech, 53(3), 307–320. doi: 10.1177/0023830910371445
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dahan, D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. (2001). Time course of frequency effects in spoken-word recognition: Evidence from eye movements. Cognitive Psychology, 42(4), 317–367. doi: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0750
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dilley, L., Gamache, J., Wang, Y., Houston, D. M., & Bergeson, T. R. (2019). Statistical distributions of consonant variants in infant-directed speech: Evidence that /t/ may be exceptional. Journal of Phonetics, 75, 73–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ernestus, M. (2000). Voice assimilation and segment reduction in casual Dutch: A corpus-based study of the phonology-phonetics interface. Utrecht: LOT. Retrieved from http://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/29974
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, V. S., & Pashler, H. (2002). Central bottleneck influences on the processing stages of word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(6), 1187–1199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ganong, W. F. (1980). Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 6(1), 110–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1996). Phonological variation and inference in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(1), 144–158. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.22.1.144
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaskell, M. G., Quinlan, P. T., Tamminen, J., & Cleland, A. A. (2008). The nature of phoneme representation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(2), 282–302. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.137.2.282
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godfrey, J. J., & Holliman, E. (1997). Switchboard-1 release 2. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
   Google Scholar
• Goh, W. D., Suarez, L., Yap, M. J., & Tan, S. H. (2009). Distributional analyses in auditory lexical decision: Neighborhood density and word-frequency effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(5), 882–887. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.5.882
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldinger, S. D. (1996). Auditory lexical decision. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(6), 559–568. doi: 10.1080/016909696386944
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gow, D. W., & Olson, B. B. (2016). Sentential influences on acoustic-phonetic processing: A Granger causality analysis of multimodal imaging data. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(7), 841–855. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2015.1029498
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grainger, J., Muneaux, M., Farioli, F., & Ziegler, J. C. (2005). Effects of phonological and orthographic neighbourhood density interact in visual word recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 58(6), 981–998. doi: 10.1080/02724980443000386
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossberg, S., Boardman, I., & Cohen, M. (1997). Neural dynamics of variable-rate speech categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(2), 481–503. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.23.2.481
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, K. (2004). Massive reduction in conversational American English. In K. Yoneyama & K. Maekawa (Eds.), Spontaneous Speech: Data and Analysis. Proceedings of the 1st Session of the 10th International Symposium (pp. 29–54). Tokyo: The National International Institute for Japanese Language.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(430), 773–795. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ladefoged, P. (2000). A course in phonetics (5th ed.). San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich.
   Google Scholar
• Lahiri, A., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1991). The mental representation of lexical form: A phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition, 38(3), 245–294. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(91)90008-R
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence, M. A. (2016). ez: Easy analysis and visualization of factorial experiments (Version 4.4-0). Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ez
   Google Scholar
• Liu, H., Bates, E., Powell, T., & Wulfeck, B. (1997). Single-word shadowing and the study of lexical access. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18(2), 157–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luce, P. A., & McLennan, C. T. (2005). Spoken word recognition: The challenge of variation. In D. B. Pisoni & R. E. Remez (Eds.), The handbook of speech perception (pp. 590–609). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19(1), 1–36. doi: 10.1097/00003446-199802000-00001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mädebach, A., Kieseler, M.-L., & Jescheniak, J. D. (2018). Localizing semantic interference from distractor sounds in picture naming: A dual-task study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(5), 1909–1916. doi: 10.3758/s13423-017-1386-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marslen-Wilson, W., & Warren, P. (1994). Levels of perceptual representation and process in lexical access: Words, phonemes, and features. Psychological Review, 101(4), 653–675. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.653
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattys, S. L., Brooks, J., & Cooke, M. (2009). Recognizing speech under a processing load: Dissociating energetic from informational factors. Cognitive Psychology, 59(3), 203–243. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.04.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattys, S. L., Carroll, L. M., Li, C. K. W., & Chan, S. L. Y. (2010). Effects of energetic and informational masking on speech segmentation by native and non-native speakers. Speech Communication, 52(11), 887–899. doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2010.01.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCann, R. S., Remington, R. W., & van Selst, M. (2000). A dual-task investigation of automaticity in visual word processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(4), 1352–1370. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.26.4.1352
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McClelland, J., & Elman, J. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 1–86. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90015-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLennan, C. T., Luce, P. A., & Charles-Luce, J. (2003). Representation of lexical form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(4), 539–553. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.29.4.539
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McQueen, J. M., Eisner, F., & Norris, D. (2016). When brain regions talk to each other during speech processing, what are they talking about? Commentary on Gow and Olson (2015). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(7), 860–863. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2016.1154975
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitterer, H., & Ernestus, M. (2008). The link between speech perception and production is phonological and abstract: Evidence from the shadowing task. Cognition, 109(1), 168–173. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitterer, H., & Reinisch, E. (2015). Letters don’t matter: No effect of orthography on the perception of conversational speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 85, 116–134. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.08.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morey, R. D., Rouder, J. N., Jamil, T., Urbanek, S., Forner, K., & Ly, A. (2018). BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs (version 0.9.12-4.2). Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BayesFactor
   Google Scholar
• Moulines, E., & Charpentier, F. (1990). Pitch-synchronous waveform processing techniques for text-to-speech synthesis using diphones. Speech Communication, 9, 453–467.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, D. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52(3), 189–234. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90043-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, D., & McQueen, J. M. (2008). Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review, 115(2), 357–395. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.357
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2000). Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(3), 299–325. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00003241
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 41(1), 19–45.
   Google Scholar
• Patterson, D. J., & Connine, C. M. (2001). Variant frequency in flap production. A corpus analysis of variant frequency in American English flap production. Phonetica, 58(4), 254–275. doi: 10.1159/000046178
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patterson, D. J., LoCasto, P. C., & Connine, C. M. (2003). Corpora analyses of frequency of schwa deletion in conversational American English. Phonetica, 60(1), 45–69. doi: 10.1159/000070453
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perre, L., Pattamadilok, C., Montant, M., & Ziegler, J. C. (2009). Orthographic effects in spoken language: On-line activation or phonological restructuring? Brain Research, 1275, 73–80. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.04.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piai, V., Roelofs, A., & Schriefers, H. (2014). Locus of semantic interference in picture naming: Evidence from dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1), 147–165. doi: 10.1037/a0033745
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Picard, M. (1984). English aspiration and flapping revisited. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 29, 42–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pitt, M. A. (2009). The strength and time course of lexical activation of pronunciation variants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(3), 896–910. doi: 10.1037/a0013160
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pitt, M. A., Dilley, L., & Tat, M. (2011). Exploring the role of exposure frequency in recognizing pronunciation variants. Journal of Phonetics, 39(3), 304–311. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.07.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pitt, M. A., & Szostak, C. M. (2012). A lexically biased attentional set compensates for variable speech quality caused by pronunciation variation. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(7–8), 1225–1239. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2011.619370
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ranbom, L. J., & Connine, C. M. (2007). Lexical representation of phonological variation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(2), 273–298. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond, W. D., Dautricourt, R., & Hume, E. (2006). Word-internal /t,d/ deletion in spontaneous speech: Modeling the effects of extra-linguistic, lexical, and phonological factors. Language Variation and Change, 18, 55–97.
   Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team. (2007). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
   Google Scholar
• Samuel, A. G. (1981). Phonemic restoration: Insights from a new methodology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(4), 474–494.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seidenberg, M. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1979). Orthographic effects on rhyme monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5(6), 546–554. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.5.6.546
   Google Scholar
• Sumner, M. (2013). A phonetic explanation of pronunciation variant effects. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(1), EL26–EL32. doi: 10.1121/1.4807432
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sumner, M., Kim, S. K., King, E., & McGowan, K. B. (2014). The socially weighted encoding of spoken words: A dual-route approach to speech perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.01015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taft, M., Castles, A., Davis, C., Lazendic, G., & Nguyen-Hoan, M. (2008). Automatic activation of orthography in spoken word recognition: Pseudohomograph priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 366–379. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 3–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tucker, B. V. (2011). The effect of reduction on the processing of flaps and /g/ in isolated words. Journal of Phonetics, 39(3), 312–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viebahn, M. C., & Luce, P. A. (2018). Increased exposure and phonetic context help listeners recognize allophonic variants. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 80(6), 1539–1558.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagenmakers, E.-J., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Ly, A., Verhagen, J., Love, J., … Morey, R. D. (2018). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(1), 35–57. doi: 10.3758/s13423-017-1343-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warner, N., Fountain, A., & Tucker, B. V. (2009). Cues to perception of reduced flaps. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(5), 3317–3327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren, R. M. (1970). Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds. Science, 167(3917), 392–393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster’s Seventh Collegiate Dictionary. (1967). Los Angeles: Library Reproduction Service.
   Google Scholar
• Zue, V. W., & Laferriere, M. (1979). Acoustic study of medial /t,d/ in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 66(4), 1039–1050.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar