1887
Volume 15, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Two experiments investigated how people perceived and remembered fragments of spoken words that either corresponded to correct lexical entries (as in the complex word ) or did not (as in the simple word ). Experiment 1 was a noise-rating task that probed perception. Participants heard stimuli such , 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., ) as louder than noise on true roots (), indicating that they perceived them with less clarity. Experiment 2 was an eye-fixation task that probed memory. Participants heard a word such as 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 . Results showed that fixations to shapes associated with pseudo-affixes ( in ) were less accurate than fixations to shapes associated with true affixes ( in ), 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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ml.19004.pyc
2020-11-06
2020-11-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Altmann, G. T. M.
    (2004) Language-mediated eye movements in the absence of a visual world: The ‘blank screen paradigm.’ Cognition, 93(2), B79–B87. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2004.02.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baddeley, A.
    (1998) Human memory: Theory and practice. Allyn & Bacon.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Balling, L. W., & Baayen, R. H.
    (2008) Morphological effects in auditory word recognition: Evidence from Danish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7–8), 1159–1190. 10.1080/01690960802201010
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802201010 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2012) Probability and surprisal in auditory comprehension of morphologically complex words. Cognition, 125(1), 80–106. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beauvillain, C.
    (1996) The integration of morphological and whole-word form information during eye fixations on prefixed and suffixed words. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(6), 801–820. 10.1006/jmla.1996.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0041 [Google Scholar]
  6. Benjamin, A. S.
    (2001) On the dual effects of repetition on false recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(4), 941–947. doi:  10.1037/0278‑7393.27.4.941
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.4.941 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bergman, M. W., Hudson, P. T. W., & Eling, P. A. T. M.
    (1988) How Simple Complex Words Can Be: Morphological Processing and Word Representations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 40(1), 41–72. doi:  10.1080/14640748808402282
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748808402282 [Google Scholar]
  8. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D.
    (2018) Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0.24) [Computer software]. www.praat.org
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Colé, P., Beauvillain, C., & Segui, J.
    (1989) On the representation and processing of prefixed and suffixed derived words: A differential frequency effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(1), 1–13. 10.1016/0749‑596X(89)90025‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90025-9 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dahan, D., Magnuson, J. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Hogan, E. M.
    (2001) Subcategorical mismatches and the time course of lexical access: Evidence for lexical competition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16(5–6), 507–534. doi:  10.1080/01690960143000074
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960143000074 [Google Scholar]
  11. Daly, C., Fallon, A. B., Mak, E., & Tehan, G.
    (2005) Lexicality and phonological similarity: A challenge for the retrieval-based account of serial recall?Memory, 13(3–4), 349–356. doi:  10.1080/09658210344000215
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210344000215 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ettinger, A., Linzen, T., & Marantz, A.
    (2014) The role of morphology in phoneme prediction: Evidence from MEG. Brain and Language, 129, 14–23. doi:  10.1016/j.bandl.2013.11.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2013.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  13. Feldman, L. B., & Larabee, J.
    (2001) Morphological facilitation following prefixed but not suffixed primes: Lexical architecture or modality-specific processes?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(3), 680–692.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ferreira, F., Apel, J., & Henderson, J. M.
    (2008) Taking a new look at looking at nothing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 405–410. doi:  10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  15. Finnigan, S.
    (2002) ERP “old/new” effects: Memory strength and decisional factor(s). Neuropsychologia, 40(13), 2288–2304. doi:  10.1016/S0028‑3932(02)00113‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00113-6 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fischer, B.
    (1987) The preparation of visually guided saccades. InReviews of Physiology, Biochemistry and Pharmacology (Vol.106, pp.1–35). Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gagnepain, P., Henson, R. N., & Davis, M. H.
    (2012) Temporal Predictive Codes for Spoken Words in Auditory Cortex. Current Biology, 22(7), 615–621. doi:  10.1016/j.cub.2012.02.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.02.015 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ganong, W. F.
    (1980) Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6(1), 110–125. doi:  10.1037/0096‑1523.6.1.110
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.6.1.110 [Google Scholar]
  19. Glanzer, M., & Adams, J. K.
    (1985) The mirror effect in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 13(1), 8–20. 10.3758/BF03198438
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198438 [Google Scholar]
  20. Glanzer, M., & Bowles, N.
    (1976) An analysis the word-frequency effect in recognition memory. Journal OF Experimental Psychology-Human Learning and Memory, 2(1), 21–31. 10.1037/0278‑7393.2.1.21
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.2.1.21 [Google Scholar]
  21. Goldinger, S. D.
    (1998) Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105(2), 251–279. doi:  10.1037/0033‑295X.105.2.251
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.105.2.251 [Google Scholar]
  22. Goldinger, S. D., Kleider, H. M., & Shelley, E.
    (1999) The marriage of perception and memory: Creating two-way illusions with words and voices. Memory & Cognition, 27(2), 328–338. 10.3758/BF03211416
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211416 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gow, D. W., Segawa, J. A., Ahlfors, S. P., & Lin, F.-H.
    (2008) Lexical influences on speech perception: A Granger causality analysis of MEG and EEG source estimates. NeuroImage, 43(3), 614–623. doi:  10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.07.027
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.07.027 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hannula, D. E., Althoff, R. R., Warren, D. E., Riggs, L., Cohen, N. J., & Ryan, J. D.
    (2010) Worth a glance: Using eye movements to investigate the cognitive neuroscience of memory. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4(166). doi:  10.3389/fnhum.2010.00166
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2010.00166 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hay, J.
    (2000) Causes and Consequences of Word Structure.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2002) From speech perception to morphology: Affix ordering revisited. Language, 78(3), 527–555. 10.1353/lan.2002.0159
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2002.0159 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hay, J., & Baayen, H.
    (2002) Parsing and productivity. InYearbook of Morphology 2001 (pp.203–235). Springer. link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-3726-5_8. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑3726‑5_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3726-5_8 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hulme, C., Maughan, S., & Brown, G. D. A.
    (1991) Memory for familiar and unfamiliar words: Evidence for a long-term memory contribution to short-term memory span. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(6), 685–701. doi:  10.1016/0749‑596X(91)90032‑F
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90032-F [Google Scholar]
  29. Hulme, C., Roodenrys, S., Brown, G., & Mercer, R.
    (1995) The role of long-term memory mechanisms in memory span. British Journal of Psychology, 86(4), 527–536. doi:  10.1111/j.2044‑8295.1995.tb02570.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1995.tb02570.x [Google Scholar]
  30. Jacoby, L. L., Allan, L. G., Collins, J. C., & Larwill, L. K.
    (1988) Memory influences subjective experience: Noise judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(2), 240.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Ji, H., Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L.
    (2011) Benefits and costs of lexical decomposition and semantic integration during the processing of transparent and opaque English compounds. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(4), 406–430. doi:  10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kapnoula, E. C., Packard, S., Gupta, P., & McMurray, B.
    (2015) Immediate lexical integration of novel word forms. Cognition, 134, 85–99. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2014.09.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kelley, C. M., & Jacoby, L. L.
    (1990) The construction of subjective experience: Memory attributions. Mind & Language, 5(1), 49–68. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.1990.tb00152.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1990.tb00152.x [Google Scholar]
  34. Longtin, C.-M., Segui, J., & Hallé, P. A.
    (2003) Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(3), 313–334. doi:  10.1080/01690960244000036
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960244000036 [Google Scholar]
  35. Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B.
    (1998) Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19(1), 1–36. doi:  10.1097/00003446‑199802000‑00001
    https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-199802000-00001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Marian, V., Bartolotti, J., Chabal, S., & Shook, A.
    (2012) CLEARPOND: Cross-Linguistic Easy-Access Resource for Phonological and Orthographic Neighborhood Densities. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e43230. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0043230
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043230 [Google Scholar]
  37. Marslen-Wilson, W. D.
    (1984) Function and process in spoken word recognition. InH. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and Performance: Vol. X. Control of Language Processes (pp.125–150).
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Welsh, A.
    (1978) Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 10(1), 29–63. doi:  10.1016/0010‑0285(78)90018‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(78)90018-X [Google Scholar]
  39. Norris, D., & McQueen, J. M.
    (2008) Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review, 115(2), 357. 10.1037/0033‑295X.115.2.357
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.357 [Google Scholar]
  40. 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
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00003241 [Google Scholar]
  41. Opitz, B.
    (2010) Context-dependent repetition effects on recognition memory. Brain and Cognition, 73(2), 110–118. doi:  10.1016/j.bandc.2010.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2010.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  42. Plitcha, B.
    (2012) Akustyk (Version 1.9.3) [Computer software]. Akustyk, Version 1.9.3. bartus.org/akustyk/index.php
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Pycha, A.
    (2015a) Listeners perceive prefixes differently: Evidence from a noise-rating task. Word Structure, 8(1), 53–83. 10.3366/word.2015.0073
    https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2015.0073 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2015b) Subjective perception of affixation: A test case from Spanish. Lingua, 159, 47–69. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.03.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  45. Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B.
    (2004) The broth in my brother’s brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 1090–1098. 10.3758/BF03196742
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196742 [Google Scholar]
  46. Richardson, D. C., & Spivey, M. J.
    (2000) Representation, space and Hollywood Squares: Looking at things that aren’t there anymore. Cognition, 76(3), 269–295. doi:  10.1016/S0010‑0277(00)00084‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00084-6 [Google Scholar]
  47. Ryan, J. D., Hannula, D. E., & Cohen, N. J.
    (2007) The obligatory effects of memory on eye movements. Memory, 15(5), 508–525. doi:  10.1080/09658210701391022
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701391022 [Google Scholar]
  48. Saint-Aubin, J., & Poirier, M.
    (2000) Immediate serial recall of words and nonwords: Tests of the retrieval-based hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(2), 332–340. doi:  10.3758/BF03212990
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212990 [Google Scholar]
  49. Samuel, A. G., & Pitt, M. A.
    (2003) Lexical activation (and other factors) can mediate compensation for coarticulation. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(2), 416–434. doi:  10.1016/S0749‑596X(02)00514‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00514-4 [Google Scholar]
  50. Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H.
    (1994) Prefix stripping re-revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(3), 357–375. 10.1006/jmla.1994.1017
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1017 [Google Scholar]
  51. Taft, M.
    (1979a) Lexical access-via an orthographic code: The basic orthographic syllabic structure (BOSS). Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(1), 21–39. doi:  10.1016/S0022‑5371(79)90544‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90544-9 [Google Scholar]
  52. (1979b) Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Memory & Cognition, 7(4), 263–272. doi:  10.3758/BF03197599
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197599 [Google Scholar]
  53. (1981) Prefix stripping revisited. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(3), 289–297. doi:  10.1016/S0022‑5371(81)90439‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90439-4 [Google Scholar]
  54. Taft, M., & Ardasinski, S.
    (2006) Obligatory decomposition in reading prefixed words. The Mental Lexicon, 1(2), 183–199. 10.1075/ml.1.2.02taf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.1.2.02taf [Google Scholar]
  55. Taft, M., & Forster, K. I.
    (1975) Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(6), 638–647. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(75)80051‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80051-X [Google Scholar]
  56. Taft, M., Hambly, G., & Kinoshita, S.
    (1986) Visual and auditory recognition of prefixed words. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38(3), 351–365. 10.1080/14640748608401603
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748608401603 [Google Scholar]
  57. Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A.
    (2004) A web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 481–487. 10.3758/BF03195594
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195594 [Google Scholar]
  58. Whittlesea, B. W.
    (1993) Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(6), 1235–1253.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Whittlesea, B. W., Jacoby, L. L., & Girard, K.
    (1990) Illusions of immediate memory: Evidence of an attributional basis for feelings of familiarity and perceptual quality. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(6), 716–732. 10.1016/0749‑596X(90)90045‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90045-2 [Google Scholar]
  60. Whittlesea, B. W., & Williams, L. D.
    (2000) The source of feelings of familiarity: The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 547–565.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Wurm, L. H.
    (1997) Auditory Processing of Prefixed English Words Is Both Continuous and Decompositional. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(3), 438–461. doi:  10.1006/jmla.1997.2524
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2524 [Google Scholar]
  62. Zipf, G. K.
    (1935) The psycho-biology of language. psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1935-04756-000
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ml.19004.pyc
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.19004.pyc
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): eye-tracking , memory , morphology and perception
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error