The Experts below are selected from a list of 297 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Jacques Mehler - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • phonological phrase boundaries constrain Lexical Access ii infant data
    Journal of Memory and Language, 2004
    Co-Authors: Anne Christophe, Sharon Peperkamp, Christophe Pallier, Eliza Block, Jacques Mehler
    Abstract:

    The location of phonological phrase boundaries was shown to affect Lexical Access by English-learning infants of 10 and 13 months of age. Experiments 1 and 2 used the head-turn preference procedure: infants were familiarized with two bisyllabic words, then presented with sentences that either contained the familiarized words or contained both their syllables separated by a phonological phrase boundary. Ten-month-olds did not show any listening preference, whereas 13-month-olds listened significantly longer to sentences containing the familiarized words. Experiments 3 and 4 relied on a variant of the conditioned head-turning technique. In a first session, infants were trained to turn their heads for an isolated bisyllabic word. In the second session, they were exposed to the same sentences as above. Both 10- and 12.5-month-old infants turned significantly more often when the target word truly appeared in the sentence. These results suggest that phonological phrase boundaries constrain on-line Lexical Access in infants.

Esther Ruigendijk - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Age-Related Differences in Lexical Access Relate to Speech Recognition in Noise
    Frontiers in psychology, 2016
    Co-Authors: Rebecca Carroll, Anna Warzybok, Birger Kollmeier, Esther Ruigendijk
    Abstract:

    Vocabulary size has been suggested as a useful measure of “verbal abilities“ that correlates with speech recognition scores. Knowing more words is linked to better speech recognition. How vocabulary knowledge translates to general speech recognition mechanisms, how these mechanisms relate to offline speech recognition scores, and how they may be modulated by acoustical distortion or age, is less clear. Age-related differences in linguistic measures may predict age-related differences in speech recognition in noise performance. We hypothesized that speech recognition performance can be predicted by the efficiency of Lexical Access, which refers to the speed with which a given word can be searched and Accessed relative to the size of the mental lexicon. We tested speech recognition in a clinical German sentence-in-noise test at two signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), in 22 younger (18-35 yrs.) and 22 older (60-78 yrs.) listeners with normal hearing. We also assessed receptive vocabulary, Lexical Access time, verbal working memory, and hearing thresholds as measures of individual differences. Age group, SNR level, vocabulary size and Lexical Access time were significant predictors of individual speech recognition scores, but working memory and hearing threshold were not. Interestingly, longer Accessing times were correlated with better speech recognition scores. Hierarchical regression models for each subset of age group and SNR showed very similar patterns: The combination of vocabulary size and Lexical Access time contributed most to speech recognition performance; only for the younger group at the better SNR (yielding about 85% correct speech recognition) did vocabulary size alone predict performance. Our data suggest that successful speech recognition in noise is mainly modulated by the efficiency of Lexical Access. This suggests that older adults’ poorer performance in the speech recognition task may have arisen from reduced efficiency in Lexical Access; with an average vocabulary size similar to that of younger adults, they were still slower in Lexical Access.

Rebecca Carroll - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Age-Related Differences in Lexical Access Relate to Speech Recognition in Noise
    Frontiers in psychology, 2016
    Co-Authors: Rebecca Carroll, Anna Warzybok, Birger Kollmeier, Esther Ruigendijk
    Abstract:

    Vocabulary size has been suggested as a useful measure of “verbal abilities“ that correlates with speech recognition scores. Knowing more words is linked to better speech recognition. How vocabulary knowledge translates to general speech recognition mechanisms, how these mechanisms relate to offline speech recognition scores, and how they may be modulated by acoustical distortion or age, is less clear. Age-related differences in linguistic measures may predict age-related differences in speech recognition in noise performance. We hypothesized that speech recognition performance can be predicted by the efficiency of Lexical Access, which refers to the speed with which a given word can be searched and Accessed relative to the size of the mental lexicon. We tested speech recognition in a clinical German sentence-in-noise test at two signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), in 22 younger (18-35 yrs.) and 22 older (60-78 yrs.) listeners with normal hearing. We also assessed receptive vocabulary, Lexical Access time, verbal working memory, and hearing thresholds as measures of individual differences. Age group, SNR level, vocabulary size and Lexical Access time were significant predictors of individual speech recognition scores, but working memory and hearing threshold were not. Interestingly, longer Accessing times were correlated with better speech recognition scores. Hierarchical regression models for each subset of age group and SNR showed very similar patterns: The combination of vocabulary size and Lexical Access time contributed most to speech recognition performance; only for the younger group at the better SNR (yielding about 85% correct speech recognition) did vocabulary size alone predict performance. Our data suggest that successful speech recognition in noise is mainly modulated by the efficiency of Lexical Access. This suggests that older adults’ poorer performance in the speech recognition task may have arisen from reduced efficiency in Lexical Access; with an average vocabulary size similar to that of younger adults, they were still slower in Lexical Access.

Gary S Dell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Connectionist Models of Language Production: Lexical Access and Grammatical Encoding
    Cognitive Science, 1999
    Co-Authors: Gary S Dell, Franklin Chang, Zenzi Margareta Griffin
    Abstract:

    Theories of language production have long been expressed as connectionist models. We outline the issues and challenges that must be addressed by connectionist models of Lexical Access and grammatical encoding, and review three recent models. The models illustrate the value of an interactive activation approach to Lexical Access in production, the need for sequential output in both phonological and grammatical encoding, and the potential for accounting for structural effects on errors and structural priming from learning.

  • stages of Lexical Access in language production
    Cognition, 1992
    Co-Authors: Gary S Dell, Padraig G Oseaghdha
    Abstract:

    Abstract We describe two primary stages in the top-down process of Lexical Access in production, a stage of lemma Access in which words are retrieved as syntactic-semantic entities, and a stage of phonological Access in which the forms of the words are fleshed out. We suggest a reconciliation of modular and interactive accounts of these stages whereby modularity is traceable to the action of discrete linguistic rule systems, but interaction arises in the Lexical network on which these rules operate. We also discuss the time-course of Lexical Access in multi-word utterances. We report some initial production priming explorations that support the hypothesis that lemmas are buffered in longer utterances before they are phonologically specified. Because such techniques provide a relatively direct way of assessing activation at the primary stages of Lexical Access they are an important new resource for the study of language production.

Willem J. M. Levelt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Lexical Access in the production of pronouns
    Cognition, 1999
    Co-Authors: Bernadette M. Schmitt, Antje S. Meyer, Willem J. M. Levelt
    Abstract:

    Speakers can use pronouns when their conceptual referents are Accessible from the preceding discourse, as in 'The flower is red. It turns blue'. Theories of language production agree that in order to produce a noun semantic, syntactic, and phonological information must be Accessed. However, little is known about Lexical Access to pronouns. In this paper, we propose a model of pronoun Access in German. Since the forms of German pronouns depend on the grammatical gender of the nouns they replace, the model claims that speakers must Access the syntactic representation of the replaced noun (its lemma) to select a pronoun. In two experiments using the Lexical decision during naming paradigm [Levelt, W.J.M., Schriefers, H., Vorberg, D., Meyer, A.S., Pechmann, T., Havinga, J., 1991a. The time course of Lexical Access in speech production: a study of picture naming. Psychological Review 98, 122-142], we investigated whether lemma Access automatically entails the activation of the corresponding word form or whether a word form is only activated when the noun itself is produced, but not when it is replaced by a pronoun. Experiment 1 showed that during pronoun production the phonological form of the replaced noun is activated. Experiment 2 demonstrated that this phonological activation was not a residual of the use of the noun in the preceding sentence. Thus, when a pronoun is produced, the lemma and the phonological form of the replaced noun become reactivated.

  • Lexical Access in speech production
    Knowledge and Language, 1993
    Co-Authors: Willem J. M. Levelt
    Abstract:

    Lexical Access in speech production proceeds at a rate of, on the average, two to three words per second. At this rate words are selected from a production lexicon which contains thousands, and probably tens of thousands, of words. These words are not only selected, but also phonologically encoded. This happens at a rate of about 15 speech sounds per second. The problem to be addressed in this chapter is how these high-rate and fairly accurate processes of Lexical selection and phonological encoding are organized.