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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cognitive psychology 2014-05, Vol.70 (May), p.1-30
Hauptverfasser: Pufahl, April, Samuel, Arthur G.
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 &amp; 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>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=28337073$$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 &amp; 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