English
 
User Manual Privacy Policy Disclaimer Contact us
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

No lexical–prelexical feedback during speech perception or: Is it time to stop playing those Christmas tapes?

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons122

McQueen,  James M.
Language Comprehension Group, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
Decoding Continuous Speech , MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons86

Jesse,  Alexandra
Language Comprehension Group, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
Decoding Continuous Speech , MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;

External Ressource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (public)

McQueen_2009_no.pdf
(Publisher version), 332KB

Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

McQueen, J. M., Jesse, A., & Norris, D. (2009). No lexical–prelexical feedback during speech perception or: Is it time to stop playing those Christmas tapes? Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 1-18. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.03.002.


Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-215A-A
Abstract
The strongest support for feedback in speech perception comes from evidence of apparent lexical influence on prelexical fricative-stop compensation for coarticulation. Lexical knowledge (e.g., that the ambiguous final fricative of Christma? should be [s]) apparently influences perception of following stops. We argue that all such previous demonstrations can be explained without invoking lexical feedback. In particular, we show that one demonstration [Magnuson, J. S., McMurray, B., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2003). Lexical effects on compensation for coarticulation: The ghost of Christmash past. Cognitive Science, 27, 285–298] involved experimentally-induced biases (from 16 practice trials) rather than feedback. We found that the direction of the compensation effect depended on whether practice stimuli were words or nonwords. When both were used, there was no lexically-mediated compensation. Across experiments, however, there were lexical effects on fricative identification. This dissociation (lexical involvement in the fricative decisions but not in the following stop decisions made on the same trials) challenges interactive models in which feedback should cause both effects. We conclude that the prelexical level is sensitive to experimentally-induced phoneme-sequence biases, but that there is no feedback during speech perception.