Revisiting neighborhood density: Adult perception of phonological similarity
Phonological similarity (i.e., neighborhood density) has been operationalized in the literature as a single phonemic difference between words. However, few studies have assessed the validity of such a measure. In the present study, 50 typical adults were presented with 70 nonwords and asked to name...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Applied psycholinguistics 2016-05, Vol.37 (3), p.627-642 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 642 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 627 |
container_title | Applied psycholinguistics |
container_volume | 37 |
creator | FREEDMAN, SKOTT E. GENNARO, MEREDITH DITOMASO, AMANDA |
description | Phonological similarity (i.e., neighborhood density) has been operationalized in the literature as a single phonemic difference between words. However, few studies have assessed the validity of such a measure. In the present study, 50 typical adults were presented with 70 nonwords and asked to name a similar-sounding real word for each item. Results indicated that participants changed an average of one segment per word, although a fifth of productions involved changing more than one of the segments; substitutions were the most common change. Targets that received a wide variety of responses and that did not phonologically resemble many real words resulted in the greatest number of changes. Using a single-segmental metric to index phonological similarity has its limitations, and may inadequately incorporate other influential elements of a word such as the frequencies of its neighbors. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0142716415000181 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1785235409</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4015089971</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c306t-4cb8b626b78a5f78ad39cb87a18d2d84474d07bc1bec116283bc5134584b4e7c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNplkEtLxDAUhYMoOI7-AHcBN26quWledTcMvmBA8LEuzaMzGTpNTVph_r0ZdKWbey_nfFwOB6FLIDdAQN6-EWBUgmDACSGg4AjNgImqyKc8RrODXRz8U3SW0jYzilI6Q6tX9-WTH32_xr3z640OcROCxdb1Wd7f4YWduhEPLho3jD70OLR42IQ-dGHtTdPh5He-a2KGz9FJ23TJXfzuOfp4uH9fPhWrl8fn5WJVmJKIsWBGKy2o0FI1vM3DllWWZAPKUqsYk8wSqQ1oZwAEVaU2HErGFdPMSVPO0fXP3yGGz8mlsd75ZFzXNb0LU6pBKk5LzkiV0as_6DZMsc_pMiUrThUXPFPwQ5kYUoqurYfod03c10DqQ7_1v37Lb8elbSY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1779528565</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Revisiting neighborhood density: Adult perception of phonological similarity</title><source>Cambridge Journals</source><creator>FREEDMAN, SKOTT E. ; GENNARO, MEREDITH ; DITOMASO, AMANDA</creator><creatorcontrib>FREEDMAN, SKOTT E. ; GENNARO, MEREDITH ; DITOMASO, AMANDA</creatorcontrib><description>Phonological similarity (i.e., neighborhood density) has been operationalized in the literature as a single phonemic difference between words. However, few studies have assessed the validity of such a measure. In the present study, 50 typical adults were presented with 70 nonwords and asked to name a similar-sounding real word for each item. Results indicated that participants changed an average of one segment per word, although a fifth of productions involved changing more than one of the segments; substitutions were the most common change. Targets that received a wide variety of responses and that did not phonologically resemble many real words resulted in the greatest number of changes. Using a single-segmental metric to index phonological similarity has its limitations, and may inadequately incorporate other influential elements of a word such as the frequencies of its neighbors.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0142-7164</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-1817</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0142716415000181</identifier><identifier>CODEN: APPSDZ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Auditory Perception ; Correlation ; Item Analysis ; Language ; Language Research ; Linguistics ; Listening Comprehension ; Neighborhood ; Neighborhoods ; Nonsense words ; Phonemes ; Phonemics ; Phonetics ; Phonological similarity ; Phonology ; Scientific Concepts ; Stimuli ; Validity ; Word Frequency ; Word Recognition</subject><ispartof>Applied psycholinguistics, 2016-05, Vol.37 (3), p.627-642</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c306t-4cb8b626b78a5f78ad39cb87a18d2d84474d07bc1bec116283bc5134584b4e7c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c306t-4cb8b626b78a5f78ad39cb87a18d2d84474d07bc1bec116283bc5134584b4e7c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>FREEDMAN, SKOTT E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GENNARO, MEREDITH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DITOMASO, AMANDA</creatorcontrib><title>Revisiting neighborhood density: Adult perception of phonological similarity</title><title>Applied psycholinguistics</title><description>Phonological similarity (i.e., neighborhood density) has been operationalized in the literature as a single phonemic difference between words. However, few studies have assessed the validity of such a measure. In the present study, 50 typical adults were presented with 70 nonwords and asked to name a similar-sounding real word for each item. Results indicated that participants changed an average of one segment per word, although a fifth of productions involved changing more than one of the segments; substitutions were the most common change. Targets that received a wide variety of responses and that did not phonologically resemble many real words resulted in the greatest number of changes. Using a single-segmental metric to index phonological similarity has its limitations, and may inadequately incorporate other influential elements of a word such as the frequencies of its neighbors.</description><subject>Auditory Perception</subject><subject>Correlation</subject><subject>Item Analysis</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Language Research</subject><subject>Linguistics</subject><subject>Listening Comprehension</subject><subject>Neighborhood</subject><subject>Neighborhoods</subject><subject>Nonsense words</subject><subject>Phonemes</subject><subject>Phonemics</subject><subject>Phonetics</subject><subject>Phonological similarity</subject><subject>Phonology</subject><subject>Scientific Concepts</subject><subject>Stimuli</subject><subject>Validity</subject><subject>Word Frequency</subject><subject>Word Recognition</subject><issn>0142-7164</issn><issn>1469-1817</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AIMQZ</sourceid><sourceid>AVQMV</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNplkEtLxDAUhYMoOI7-AHcBN26quWledTcMvmBA8LEuzaMzGTpNTVph_r0ZdKWbey_nfFwOB6FLIDdAQN6-EWBUgmDACSGg4AjNgImqyKc8RrODXRz8U3SW0jYzilI6Q6tX9-WTH32_xr3z640OcROCxdb1Wd7f4YWduhEPLho3jD70OLR42IQ-dGHtTdPh5He-a2KGz9FJ23TJXfzuOfp4uH9fPhWrl8fn5WJVmJKIsWBGKy2o0FI1vM3DllWWZAPKUqsYk8wSqQ1oZwAEVaU2HErGFdPMSVPO0fXP3yGGz8mlsd75ZFzXNb0LU6pBKk5LzkiV0as_6DZMsc_pMiUrThUXPFPwQ5kYUoqurYfod03c10DqQ7_1v37Lb8elbSY</recordid><startdate>20160501</startdate><enddate>20160501</enddate><creator>FREEDMAN, SKOTT E.</creator><creator>GENNARO, MEREDITH</creator><creator>DITOMASO, AMANDA</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BM</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AIMQZ</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>CPGLG</scope><scope>CRLPW</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LIQON</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160501</creationdate><title>Revisiting neighborhood density: Adult perception of phonological similarity</title><author>FREEDMAN, SKOTT E. ; GENNARO, MEREDITH ; DITOMASO, AMANDA</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c306t-4cb8b626b78a5f78ad39cb87a18d2d84474d07bc1bec116283bc5134584b4e7c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Auditory Perception</topic><topic>Correlation</topic><topic>Item Analysis</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Language Research</topic><topic>Linguistics</topic><topic>Listening Comprehension</topic><topic>Neighborhood</topic><topic>Neighborhoods</topic><topic>Nonsense words</topic><topic>Phonemes</topic><topic>Phonemics</topic><topic>Phonetics</topic><topic>Phonological similarity</topic><topic>Phonology</topic><topic>Scientific Concepts</topic><topic>Stimuli</topic><topic>Validity</topic><topic>Word Frequency</topic><topic>Word Recognition</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>FREEDMAN, SKOTT E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GENNARO, MEREDITH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DITOMASO, AMANDA</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ComDisDome</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>Linguistics Collection</collection><collection>Linguistics Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Art, Design & Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature - U.S. Customers Only</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Arts & Humanities Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Applied psycholinguistics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>FREEDMAN, SKOTT E.</au><au>GENNARO, MEREDITH</au><au>DITOMASO, AMANDA</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Revisiting neighborhood density: Adult perception of phonological similarity</atitle><jtitle>Applied psycholinguistics</jtitle><date>2016-05-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>627</spage><epage>642</epage><pages>627-642</pages><issn>0142-7164</issn><eissn>1469-1817</eissn><coden>APPSDZ</coden><abstract>Phonological similarity (i.e., neighborhood density) has been operationalized in the literature as a single phonemic difference between words. However, few studies have assessed the validity of such a measure. In the present study, 50 typical adults were presented with 70 nonwords and asked to name a similar-sounding real word for each item. Results indicated that participants changed an average of one segment per word, although a fifth of productions involved changing more than one of the segments; substitutions were the most common change. Targets that received a wide variety of responses and that did not phonologically resemble many real words resulted in the greatest number of changes. Using a single-segmental metric to index phonological similarity has its limitations, and may inadequately incorporate other influential elements of a word such as the frequencies of its neighbors.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0142716415000181</doi><tpages>16</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0142-7164 |
ispartof | Applied psycholinguistics, 2016-05, Vol.37 (3), p.627-642 |
issn | 0142-7164 1469-1817 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1785235409 |
source | Cambridge Journals |
subjects | Auditory Perception Correlation Item Analysis Language Language Research Linguistics Listening Comprehension Neighborhood Neighborhoods Nonsense words Phonemes Phonemics Phonetics Phonological similarity Phonology Scientific Concepts Stimuli Validity Word Frequency Word Recognition |
title | Revisiting neighborhood density: Adult perception of phonological similarity |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T17%3A23%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Revisiting%20neighborhood%20density:%20Adult%20perception%20of%20phonological%20similarity&rft.jtitle=Applied%20psycholinguistics&rft.au=FREEDMAN,%20SKOTT%20E.&rft.date=2016-05-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=627&rft.epage=642&rft.pages=627-642&rft.issn=0142-7164&rft.eissn=1469-1817&rft.coden=APPSDZ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0142716415000181&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E4015089971%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1779528565&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |