Maintenance of subcategorical information during speech perception: Revisiting misunderstood limitations

IF 2.9 1区 心理学 Q1 LINGUISTICS
Klinton Bicknell , Wednesday Bushong , Michael K. Tanenhaus , T. Florian Jaeger
{"title":"Maintenance of subcategorical information during speech perception: Revisiting misunderstood limitations","authors":"Klinton Bicknell ,&nbsp;Wednesday Bushong ,&nbsp;Michael K. Tanenhaus ,&nbsp;T. Florian Jaeger","doi":"10.1016/j.jml.2024.104565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Accurate word recognition is facilitated by context. Some relevant context, however, occurs after the word. Rational use of such “right context” would require listeners to have maintained uncertainty or subcategorical information about the word, thus allowing for consideration of possible alternatives when they encounter relevant right context. A classic study continues to be widely cited as evidence that subcategorical information maintenance is limited to highly ambiguous percepts and short time spans (<span><span>Connine et al., 1991</span></span>). More recent studies, however, using other phonological contrasts, and sometimes other paradigms, have returned mixed results. We identify procedural and analytical issues that provide an explanation for existing results. We address these issues in two reanalyses of previously published results and two new experiments. In all four cases, we find consistent evidence against both limitations reported in Connine et al.’s seminal work, at least within the classic paradigms. Key to our approach is the introduction of an ideal observer framework to derive normative predictions for human word recognition expected if listeners maintain and integrate subcategorical information about preceding speech input rationally with subsequent context. We test these predictions in Bayesian mixed-effect analyses, including at the level of individual participants. While we find that the ideal observer fits participants’ behavior better than models based on previously proposed limitations, we also find one previously unrecognized aspect of listeners’ behavior that is unexpected under any existing model, including the ideal observer.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16493,"journal":{"name":"Journal of memory and language","volume":"140 ","pages":"Article 104565"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of memory and language","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X24000688","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Accurate word recognition is facilitated by context. Some relevant context, however, occurs after the word. Rational use of such “right context” would require listeners to have maintained uncertainty or subcategorical information about the word, thus allowing for consideration of possible alternatives when they encounter relevant right context. A classic study continues to be widely cited as evidence that subcategorical information maintenance is limited to highly ambiguous percepts and short time spans (Connine et al., 1991). More recent studies, however, using other phonological contrasts, and sometimes other paradigms, have returned mixed results. We identify procedural and analytical issues that provide an explanation for existing results. We address these issues in two reanalyses of previously published results and two new experiments. In all four cases, we find consistent evidence against both limitations reported in Connine et al.’s seminal work, at least within the classic paradigms. Key to our approach is the introduction of an ideal observer framework to derive normative predictions for human word recognition expected if listeners maintain and integrate subcategorical information about preceding speech input rationally with subsequent context. We test these predictions in Bayesian mixed-effect analyses, including at the level of individual participants. While we find that the ideal observer fits participants’ behavior better than models based on previously proposed limitations, we also find one previously unrecognized aspect of listeners’ behavior that is unexpected under any existing model, including the ideal observer.

在语音感知过程中保持次分类信息:重新审视被误解的局限性
语境有助于准确识别单词。然而,有些相关上下文出现在单词之后。要合理使用这种 "正确语境",听者就必须保持有关单词的不确定性或亚分类信息,从而在遇到相关的正确语境时考虑可能的替代方案。一项经典的研究一直被广泛引用,以证明亚分类信息的保持仅限于高度模糊的知觉和短时间内(Connine 等人,1991 年)。然而,最近使用其他语音对比,有时也使用其他范式进行的研究却得出了好坏参半的结果。我们发现了程序和分析方面的问题,这些问题为现有结果提供了解释。我们在两项对以前发表的结果的重新分析和两项新实验中解决了这些问题。在所有四个案例中,我们都发现了一致的证据,证明康奈等人的开创性工作中所报告的两个局限性,至少在经典范式中是如此。我们的研究方法的关键在于引入了一个理想观察者框架,如果听者能合理地保持和整合前面语音输入的子分类信息和后面的上下文,我们就能推导出人类单词识别的规范预测。我们在贝叶斯混合效应分析中对这些预测进行了检验,包括在个体参与者的层面上。我们发现理想观察者比基于以前提出的限制条件的模型更适合参与者的行为,同时我们还发现了听者行为中一个以前未曾认识到的方面,这在任何现有模型(包括理想观察者)下都是出乎意料的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
14.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
12.7 weeks
期刊介绍: Articles in the Journal of Memory and Language contribute to the formulation of scientific issues and theories in the areas of memory, language comprehension and production, and cognitive processes. Special emphasis is given to research articles that provide new theoretical insights based on a carefully laid empirical foundation. The journal generally favors articles that provide multiple experiments. In addition, significant theoretical papers without new experimental findings may be published. The Journal of Memory and Language is a valuable tool for cognitive scientists, including psychologists, linguists, and others interested in memory and learning, language, reading, and speech. Research Areas include: • Topics that illuminate aspects of memory or language processing • Linguistics • Neuropsychology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信