Developmental consistency in the use of subphonemic information during real-time sentence processing

References

• Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blazej, L. J., & Cohen-Goldberg, A. M. (2015). Can we hear morphological complexity before words are complex? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(1), 50–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038509
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bucci, M. P., & Seassau, M. (2012). Saccadic eye movements in children: A developmental study. Experimental Brain Research, 222(1-2), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3192-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christophe, A., Peperkamp, S., Pallier, C., Block, E., & Mehler, J. (2004). Phonological phrase boundaries constrain lexical access I. Adult data. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(4), 523–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conwell, E. (2017a). Are homophones acoustically distinguished in child-directed speech? Language Learning and Development, 13(3), 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2016.1246248
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conwell, E. (2017b). Prosodic disambiguation of noun/verb homophones in child-directed speech. Journal of Child Language, 44(3), 743–751. https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500091600009X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conwell, E. (2018). Token frequency effects in homophone production: An elicitation study. Language and Speech, 61(3), 466–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830917737108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conwell, E., Pichardo, F., Horvath, G., & Lopez, A. (2021). Repetition, but not acoustic differentiation, facilitates pseudohomophone learning by children. Language Learning and Development, 18(4), 475–484.https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2021.1999244
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, M. H., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Gaskell, M. G. (2002). Leading up the lexical garden path: Segmentation and ambiguity in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(1), 218–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.28.1.218
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gahl, S. (2008). Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language, 84(3), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gout, A., Christophe, A., & Morgan, J. L. (2004). Phonological phrase boundaries constrain lexical access II. Infant data. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(4), 548–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). Lmertest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Y., Kaiser, E., & Goldstein, L. (2020). I scream for ice cream: Resolving lexical ambiguity with subphonemic information. Language and Speech, 63(3), 526–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830919866870
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehiste, I. (1972). The timing of utterances and linguistic boundaries. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 51(6B), 2018–2024. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1913062
   Google Scholar
• Lohmann, A. (2018a). Time and thyme are not homophones: A closer look at Gahl’s work on the lemma frequency effect, including a reanalysis. Language, 94(2), e180–e190. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohmann, A. (2018b). Cut (n) and cut (v) are not homophones: Lemma frequency affects the duration of noun-verb conversion pairs. Journal of Linguistics, 54(4), 753–777. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226717000378
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory and Cognition, 9(3), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196957
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paquette-Smith, M., Fecher, N., & Johnson, E. K. (2016). Two-year-olds’ sensitivity to subphonemic mismatch during online spoken word recognition. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 78(8), 2329–2340. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016-1186-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quené, H. (1992). Durational cues for word segmentation in Dutch. Journal of Phonetics, 20(3), 331–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30638-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabagliati, H., & Robertson, A. (2017). How do children learn to avoid referential ambiguity? Insights from eye-tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.09.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Salverda, A. P., Dahan, D., & McQueen, J. M. (2003). The role of prosodic boundaries in the resolution of lexical embedded in speech comprehension. Cognition, 90(1), 51–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00139-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanker, C. (2019). Effects of lexical ambiguity, frequency, and acoustic details in auditory perception. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 81(1), 323–343. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1604-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seyfarth, S., Garellek, M., Gillingham, G., Ackerman, F., & Malouf, R. (2018). Acoustic differences in morphologically-distinct homophones. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 33(1), 32–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1359634
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shatzman, K. B., & McQueen, J. M. (2006). Segment duration as a cue to word boundaries in spoken-word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 68(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193651
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shukla, M., White, K. S., & Aslin, R. N. (2011). Prosody guides the rapid mapping of auditory word forms onto visual objects in 6-mo-old infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 108(15), 6038–6043. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1017617108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinelli, E., Grimault, N., Meunier, F., & Welby, P. (2010). An intonational cue to word segmentation in phonemically identical sequences. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 72(3), 775–787. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.3.775
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swingley, D. (2016). Two-year-olds interpret novel phonological neighbors as familiar words. Developmental Psychology, 52(7), 1011–1023. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swingley, D., & Aslin, R. N. (2007). Lexical competition in young children’s word learning. Cognitive Psychology, 54(2), 99–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.05.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, K. S., & Morgan, J. L. (2008). Sub-segmental detail in early lexical representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(1), 114–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zamuner, T. S., Moore, C., & Desmeules-Trudel. (2016). Toddlers’ sensitivity to within-word coarticulation during spoken word recognition; developmental differences in lexical competition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 152, 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.07.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar