How lexical is the lexicon? Evidence for integrated auditory memory representations
•We presented participants with spoken words paired with environmental sounds.•Subsequent word recognition of filtered stimuli was impaired if the voice changed.•Word recognition was similarly impaired if the paired environmental sound changed.•We observed the same result when we reversed the roles...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cognitive psychology 2014-05, Vol.70 (May), p.1-30 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 30 |
---|---|
container_issue | May |
container_start_page | 1 |
container_title | Cognitive psychology |
container_volume | 70 |
creator | Pufahl, April Samuel, Arthur G. |
description | •We presented participants with spoken words paired with environmental sounds.•Subsequent word recognition of filtered stimuli was impaired if the voice changed.•Word recognition was similarly impaired if the paired environmental sound changed.•We observed the same result when we reversed the roles of the words and the sounds.•Models should treat lexical representations as a subset of memory representations.
Previous research has shown that lexical representations must include not only linguistic information (what word was said), but also indexical information (how it was said, and by whom). The present work demonstrates that even this expansion is not sufficient. Seemingly irrelevant information, such as an unattended background sound, is retained in memory and can facilitate subsequent speech perception. We presented participants with spoken words paired with environmental sounds (e.g., a phone ringing), and had them make an “animate/inanimate” decision for each word. Later performance identifying filtered versions of the words was impaired to a similar degree if the voice changed or if the environmental sound changed. Moreover, when quite dissimilar words were used at exposure and test, we observed the same result when we reversed the roles of the words and the environmental sounds. The experiments also demonstrated limits to these effects, with no benefit from repetition. Theoretically, our results support two alternative possibilities: (1) Lexical representations are memory representations, and are not walled off from those for other sounds. Indexical effects reflect simply one type of co-occurrence that is incorporated into such representations. (2) The existing literature on indexical effects does not actually bear on lexical representations – voice changes, like environmental sounds heard with a word, produce implicit memory effects that are not tied to the lexicon. We discuss the evidence and implications of these two theoretical alternatives. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.01.001 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4048665</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0010028514000048</els_id><sourcerecordid>1510113667</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c661t-5d982326afbcb9682a8d13145c523e623f278234c5f9330b4d60da9f4c0949eb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkkuP0zAQgCMEYrsLf2EVCSFxSRg_k1x4aLWwSCtxAM6WY09aV2lc7KTQf4-z7S6PC714ZPub0Xj8ZdklgZIAka_XpfHLbdybVUmB8BJICUAeZQsCjSiEpOxxtkgnUACtxVl2HuMaAKiU4ml2RjmvgQu2yL7c-B95jz-d0X3uYj6u8LD1w9v8eucsDgbzzofcDSMugx7R5nqybvRhn29wM4eA24ARh1GPzg_xWfak033E58d4kX37cP316qa4_fzx09X728JIScZC2KamjErdtaZtZE11bQkjXBhBGaYXdLRKADeiaxiDllsJVjcdN9DwBlt2kb051N1O7QatSQ0E3attcBsd9sprp_6-GdxKLf1OceB1GkQq8OpYIPjvE8ZRbVw02Pd6QD9FRQQnTcOA8tPQqknLCSjjNaU1JSegFFjNOTkFTV4QJmWV0Bf_oGs_hSF9xR2Vhkrl3KY8UCb4GAN2D4MjoGbH1FrdO6ZmxxQQlYxKiZd_jv0h7V6qBLw8AjomrbqgB-Pib65mrIJq5t4dOEyS7BwGFY2bfbMuoBmV9e5_vfwCL6XxUg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1510782269</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How lexical is the lexicon? Evidence for integrated auditory memory representations</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Pufahl, April ; Samuel, Arthur G.</creator><creatorcontrib>Pufahl, April ; Samuel, Arthur G.</creatorcontrib><description>•We presented participants with spoken words paired with environmental sounds.•Subsequent word recognition of filtered stimuli was impaired if the voice changed.•Word recognition was similarly impaired if the paired environmental sound changed.•We observed the same result when we reversed the roles of the words and the sounds.•Models should treat lexical representations as a subset of memory representations.
Previous research has shown that lexical representations must include not only linguistic information (what word was said), but also indexical information (how it was said, and by whom). The present work demonstrates that even this expansion is not sufficient. Seemingly irrelevant information, such as an unattended background sound, is retained in memory and can facilitate subsequent speech perception. We presented participants with spoken words paired with environmental sounds (e.g., a phone ringing), and had them make an “animate/inanimate” decision for each word. Later performance identifying filtered versions of the words was impaired to a similar degree if the voice changed or if the environmental sound changed. Moreover, when quite dissimilar words were used at exposure and test, we observed the same result when we reversed the roles of the words and the environmental sounds. The experiments also demonstrated limits to these effects, with no benefit from repetition. Theoretically, our results support two alternative possibilities: (1) Lexical representations are memory representations, and are not walled off from those for other sounds. Indexical effects reflect simply one type of co-occurrence that is incorporated into such representations. (2) The existing literature on indexical effects does not actually bear on lexical representations – voice changes, like environmental sounds heard with a word, produce implicit memory effects that are not tied to the lexicon. We discuss the evidence and implications of these two theoretical alternatives.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0010-0285</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1095-5623</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.01.001</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24480453</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CGPSBQ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Audition ; Auditory Perception ; Biological and medical sciences ; Experiments ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Human ; Humans ; Implicit memory ; Indexical effects ; Language ; Learning. Memory ; Lexical representation ; Linguistics ; Listening Comprehension ; Memory ; Memory - physiology ; Mental lexicon ; Perception ; Priming ; Production and perception of spoken language ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Recognition (Psychology) - physiology ; Repetition ; Sound ; Specificity effects ; Speech Perception - physiology ; Spoken word recognition ; Spoken words</subject><ispartof>Cognitive psychology, 2014-05, Vol.70 (May), p.1-30</ispartof><rights>2014 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Academic Press May 2014</rights><rights>2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c661t-5d982326afbcb9682a8d13145c523e623f278234c5f9330b4d60da9f4c0949eb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c661t-5d982326afbcb9682a8d13145c523e623f278234c5f9330b4d60da9f4c0949eb3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.01.001$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,3550,27924,27925,30999,31000,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=28337073$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24480453$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pufahl, April</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Samuel, Arthur G.</creatorcontrib><title>How lexical is the lexicon? Evidence for integrated auditory memory representations</title><title>Cognitive psychology</title><addtitle>Cogn Psychol</addtitle><description>•We presented participants with spoken words paired with environmental sounds.•Subsequent word recognition of filtered stimuli was impaired if the voice changed.•Word recognition was similarly impaired if the paired environmental sound changed.•We observed the same result when we reversed the roles of the words and the sounds.•Models should treat lexical representations as a subset of memory representations.
Previous research has shown that lexical representations must include not only linguistic information (what word was said), but also indexical information (how it was said, and by whom). The present work demonstrates that even this expansion is not sufficient. Seemingly irrelevant information, such as an unattended background sound, is retained in memory and can facilitate subsequent speech perception. We presented participants with spoken words paired with environmental sounds (e.g., a phone ringing), and had them make an “animate/inanimate” decision for each word. Later performance identifying filtered versions of the words was impaired to a similar degree if the voice changed or if the environmental sound changed. Moreover, when quite dissimilar words were used at exposure and test, we observed the same result when we reversed the roles of the words and the environmental sounds. The experiments also demonstrated limits to these effects, with no benefit from repetition. Theoretically, our results support two alternative possibilities: (1) Lexical representations are memory representations, and are not walled off from those for other sounds. Indexical effects reflect simply one type of co-occurrence that is incorporated into such representations. (2) The existing literature on indexical effects does not actually bear on lexical representations – voice changes, like environmental sounds heard with a word, produce implicit memory effects that are not tied to the lexicon. We discuss the evidence and implications of these two theoretical alternatives.</description><subject>Audition</subject><subject>Auditory Perception</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Implicit memory</subject><subject>Indexical effects</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Learning. Memory</subject><subject>Lexical representation</subject><subject>Linguistics</subject><subject>Listening Comprehension</subject><subject>Memory</subject><subject>Memory - physiology</subject><subject>Mental lexicon</subject><subject>Perception</subject><subject>Priming</subject><subject>Production and perception of spoken language</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Recognition (Psychology) - physiology</subject><subject>Repetition</subject><subject>Sound</subject><subject>Specificity effects</subject><subject>Speech Perception - physiology</subject><subject>Spoken word recognition</subject><subject>Spoken words</subject><issn>0010-0285</issn><issn>1095-5623</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkkuP0zAQgCMEYrsLf2EVCSFxSRg_k1x4aLWwSCtxAM6WY09aV2lc7KTQf4-z7S6PC714ZPub0Xj8ZdklgZIAka_XpfHLbdybVUmB8BJICUAeZQsCjSiEpOxxtkgnUACtxVl2HuMaAKiU4ml2RjmvgQu2yL7c-B95jz-d0X3uYj6u8LD1w9v8eucsDgbzzofcDSMugx7R5nqybvRhn29wM4eA24ARh1GPzg_xWfak033E58d4kX37cP316qa4_fzx09X728JIScZC2KamjErdtaZtZE11bQkjXBhBGaYXdLRKADeiaxiDllsJVjcdN9DwBlt2kb051N1O7QatSQ0E3attcBsd9sprp_6-GdxKLf1OceB1GkQq8OpYIPjvE8ZRbVw02Pd6QD9FRQQnTcOA8tPQqknLCSjjNaU1JSegFFjNOTkFTV4QJmWV0Bf_oGs_hSF9xR2Vhkrl3KY8UCb4GAN2D4MjoGbH1FrdO6ZmxxQQlYxKiZd_jv0h7V6qBLw8AjomrbqgB-Pib65mrIJq5t4dOEyS7BwGFY2bfbMuoBmV9e5_vfwCL6XxUg</recordid><startdate>20140501</startdate><enddate>20140501</enddate><creator>Pufahl, April</creator><creator>Samuel, Arthur G.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Academic Press</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140501</creationdate><title>How lexical is the lexicon? Evidence for integrated auditory memory representations</title><author>Pufahl, April ; Samuel, Arthur G.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c661t-5d982326afbcb9682a8d13145c523e623f278234c5f9330b4d60da9f4c0949eb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Audition</topic><topic>Auditory Perception</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Implicit memory</topic><topic>Indexical effects</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Learning. Memory</topic><topic>Lexical representation</topic><topic>Linguistics</topic><topic>Listening Comprehension</topic><topic>Memory</topic><topic>Memory - physiology</topic><topic>Mental lexicon</topic><topic>Perception</topic><topic>Priming</topic><topic>Production and perception of spoken language</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Recognition (Psychology) - physiology</topic><topic>Repetition</topic><topic>Sound</topic><topic>Specificity effects</topic><topic>Speech Perception - physiology</topic><topic>Spoken word recognition</topic><topic>Spoken words</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pufahl, April</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Samuel, Arthur G.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Cognitive psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pufahl, April</au><au>Samuel, Arthur G.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How lexical is the lexicon? Evidence for integrated auditory memory representations</atitle><jtitle>Cognitive psychology</jtitle><addtitle>Cogn Psychol</addtitle><date>2014-05-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>70</volume><issue>May</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>30</epage><pages>1-30</pages><issn>0010-0285</issn><eissn>1095-5623</eissn><coden>CGPSBQ</coden><abstract>•We presented participants with spoken words paired with environmental sounds.•Subsequent word recognition of filtered stimuli was impaired if the voice changed.•Word recognition was similarly impaired if the paired environmental sound changed.•We observed the same result when we reversed the roles of the words and the sounds.•Models should treat lexical representations as a subset of memory representations.
Previous research has shown that lexical representations must include not only linguistic information (what word was said), but also indexical information (how it was said, and by whom). The present work demonstrates that even this expansion is not sufficient. Seemingly irrelevant information, such as an unattended background sound, is retained in memory and can facilitate subsequent speech perception. We presented participants with spoken words paired with environmental sounds (e.g., a phone ringing), and had them make an “animate/inanimate” decision for each word. Later performance identifying filtered versions of the words was impaired to a similar degree if the voice changed or if the environmental sound changed. Moreover, when quite dissimilar words were used at exposure and test, we observed the same result when we reversed the roles of the words and the environmental sounds. The experiments also demonstrated limits to these effects, with no benefit from repetition. Theoretically, our results support two alternative possibilities: (1) Lexical representations are memory representations, and are not walled off from those for other sounds. Indexical effects reflect simply one type of co-occurrence that is incorporated into such representations. (2) The existing literature on indexical effects does not actually bear on lexical representations – voice changes, like environmental sounds heard with a word, produce implicit memory effects that are not tied to the lexicon. We discuss the evidence and implications of these two theoretical alternatives.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>24480453</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.01.001</doi><tpages>30</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0010-0285 |
ispartof | Cognitive psychology, 2014-05, Vol.70 (May), p.1-30 |
issn | 0010-0285 1095-5623 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4048665 |
source | MEDLINE; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
subjects | Audition Auditory Perception Biological and medical sciences Experiments Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Human Humans Implicit memory Indexical effects Language Learning. Memory Lexical representation Linguistics Listening Comprehension Memory Memory - physiology Mental lexicon Perception Priming Production and perception of spoken language Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychology. Psychophysiology Recognition (Psychology) - physiology Repetition Sound Specificity effects Speech Perception - physiology Spoken word recognition Spoken words |
title | How lexical is the lexicon? Evidence for integrated auditory memory representations |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T20%3A45%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20lexical%20is%20the%20lexicon?%20Evidence%20for%20integrated%20auditory%20memory%20representations&rft.jtitle=Cognitive%20psychology&rft.au=Pufahl,%20April&rft.date=2014-05-01&rft.volume=70&rft.issue=May&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=30&rft.pages=1-30&rft.issn=0010-0285&rft.eissn=1095-5623&rft.coden=CGPSBQ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.01.001&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1510113667%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1510782269&rft_id=info:pmid/24480453&rft_els_id=S0010028514000048&rfr_iscdi=true |