Article published in:
Phonological and Phonetic Considerations of Lexical Processing
Edited by Gonia Jarema and Gary Libben
[Benjamins Current Topics 80] 2015
► pp. 1540
References
Baayen, R., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L.
(1995) The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Bradlow, A., Nygaard, L., & Pisoni, D.
(1999) Effects of talker, rate, and amplitude variation on recognition memory for spoken words. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 206–219. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Craik, F., & Kirsner, K.
(1974) The effect of speaker’s voice on word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26, 274–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dahan, D., Drucker, S., & Scarborough, R.
(2008) Talker adaptation in speech perception: Adjusting the signal or the representations? Cognition, 108(3), 710–718. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Faraway, J.
(2006) Extending linear models with R: generalized linear mixed effects and nonpara metric regression models. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Goh, W.
(2005) Talker variability and recognition memory: Instance-specific and voice-specific effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 40–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldinger, S.
(1996) Words and voices: Episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1166–1183. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) A complementary-systems approach to abstract and episodic speech perception. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 49–54). Saarbrücken, Germany.
Hanique, I., Ernestus, M., & Boves, L.
(2015) Choice and pronunciation of words: Individual differences within a homogeneous group of speakers. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory11, 161–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hanique, I., Ernestus, M., & Schuppler, B.
(2013) Informal speech processes can be categorical in nature, even if they affect many different words. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(3), 1644–1655. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janse, E.
(2008) Spoken-word processing in aphasia: Effects of item overlap and item repetition. Brain and Language, 105, 185–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mattys, S., & Liss, J.
(2008) On building models of spoken-word recognition: When there is as much to learn from natural “oddities” as artificial normality. Perception and Psychophysics, 70(7), 1235–1242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mattys, S., & Wiget, L.
(2011) Effects of cognitive load on speech recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 145–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McLennan, C., & Luce, P.
(2005) Examining the time course of indexical specificity effects in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(2), 306–321. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McLennan, C., Luce, P., & Charles-Luce, J.
(2003) Representation of lexical form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(4), 539–553. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oostdijk, N.
(2002) The design of the Spoken Dutch Corpus. InP. Peters, P. Collins, & A. Smith(Eds.), New frontiers of corpus research (pp. 105–112). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Palmeri, T., Goldinger, S., & Pisoni, D.
(1993) Episodic encoding of voice attributes and recognition memory for spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 309–328. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R.H.
(2005) Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(4), 2561–2569. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schuppler, B., Ernestus, M., Scharenborg, O., & Boves, L.
(2011) Acoustic reduction in conversational Dutch: A quantitative analysis based on automatically generated segmental transcriptions. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 96–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van de Ven, M., Tucker, B., & Ernestus, M.
(2011) Semantic context effects in the comprehension of reduced pronunciation variants. Memory and Cognition, 39, 1301–1316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar