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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Applied psycholinguistics 2016-05, Vol.37 (3), p.627-642
Hauptverfasser: FREEDMAN, SKOTT E., GENNARO, MEREDITH, DITOMASO, AMANDA
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 &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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 &amp; Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature - U.S. Customers Only</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Arts &amp; Humanities Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; 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