Differences in perception and memory for speech fragments in complex versus simple words
Two experiments investigated how people perceived and remembered fragments of spoken words that either corresponded to correct lexical entries (as in the complex word drink-er) or did not (as in the simple word glitt-er). Experiment 1 was a noise-rating task that probed perception. Participants heard stimuli such drinker, where strikethrough indicates noise overlaid at a controlled signal-to-noise ratio, and rated the loudness of the noise. Results showed that participants rated noise on certain pseudo-roots (e.g., glitter) as louder than noise on true roots ( drinker), indicating that they perceived them with less clarity. Experiment 2 was an eye-fixation task that probed memory. Participants heard a word such as drink-er while associating each fragment with a visual shape. At test, they saw the shapes again, and were asked to look at the shape associated with a particular fragment, such as drink. Results showed that fixations to shapes associated with pseudo-affixes (-er in glitter) were less accurate than fixations to shapes associated with true affixes (-er in drinker), which suggests that they remembered the pseudo-affixes more poorly. These findings provide evidence that the presence of correct lexical entries for roots and affixes modulates people’s judgments about the speech that they hear.
- Background and motivation
- Experiment 1 on perception: Noise-rating task
- Overview of stimulus selection
- Stimulus selection process
- Recording and segmentation
- Normalization and stimulus creation
- List construction
- Preliminary break-down by noise level
- Main analysis
- Summary of Experiment 1
- Experiment 2 on memory: Fixation task
- Discussion of Experiment 2
Published online: 06 November 2020
Altmann, G. T. M.
Balling, L. W., & Baayen, R. H.
Benjamin, A. S.
Bergman, M. W., Hudson, P. T. W., & Eling, P. A. T. M.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D.
(2018) Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0.24) [Computer software]. www.praat.org
Colé, P., Beauvillain, C., & Segui, J.
Dahan, D., Magnuson, J. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Hogan, E. M.
Daly, C., Fallon, A. B., Mak, E., & Tehan, G.
Ettinger, A., Linzen, T., & Marantz, A.
Feldman, L. B., & Larabee, J.
Ferreira, F., Apel, J., & Henderson, J. M.
Gagnepain, P., Henson, R. N., & Davis, M. H.
Ganong, W. F.
Glanzer, M., & Adams, J. K.
Glanzer, M., & Bowles, N.
Goldinger, S. D.
Goldinger, S. D., Kleider, H. M., & Shelley, E.
Gow, D. W., Segawa, J. A., Ahlfors, S. P., & Lin, F.-H.
Hannula, D. E., Althoff, R. R., Warren, D. E., Riggs, L., Cohen, N. J., & Ryan, J. D.
Hay, J., & Baayen, H.
(2002) Parsing and productivity. In Yearbook of Morphology 2001 (pp. 203–235). Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-3726-5_8.
Hulme, C., Maughan, S., & Brown, G. D. A.
Hulme, C., Roodenrys, S., Brown, G., & Mercer, R.
Jacoby, L. L., Allan, L. G., Collins, J. C., & Larwill, L. K.
Ji, H., Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L.
Kapnoula, E. C., Packard, S., Gupta, P., & McMurray, B.
Kelley, C. M., & Jacoby, L. L.
Longtin, C.-M., Segui, J., & Hallé, P. A.
Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B.
Marian, V., Bartolotti, J., Chabal, S., & Shook, A.
Marslen-Wilson, W. D.
Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Welsh, A.
Norris, D., & McQueen, J. M.
Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A.
(2012) Akustyk (Version 1.9.3) [Computer software]. Akustyk, Version 1.9.3. http://bartus.org/akustyk/index.php
Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B.
Richardson, D. C., & Spivey, M. J.
Ryan, J. D., Hannula, D. E., & Cohen, N. J.
Saint-Aubin, J., & Poirier, M.
Samuel, A. G., & Pitt, M. A.
Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H.
Taft, M., & Ardasinski, S.
Taft, M., & Forster, K. I.
Taft, M., Hambly, G., & Kinoshita, S.
Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A.
Whittlesea, B. W.
Whittlesea, B. W., Jacoby, L. L., & Girard, K.
Whittlesea, B. W., & Williams, L. D.
Wurm, L. H.
Zipf, G. K.
(1935) The psycho-biology of language. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1935-04756-000