The development of lexical competition in written- and spoken-word recognition

Abstract

Efficient word recognition depends on the ability to overcome competition from overlapping words. The nature of the overlap depends on the input modality: spoken words have temporal overlap from other words that share phonemes in the same positions, whereas written words have spatial overlap from other words with letters in the same places. It is unclear how these differences in input format affect the ability to recognise a word and the types of competitors that become active while doing so. This study investigates word recognition in both modalities in children between 7 and 15. Children complete a visual-world paradigm eye-tracking task that measures competition from words with several types of overlap, using identical word lists between modalities. Results showed correlated developmental changes in the speed of target recognition in both modalities. In addition, developmental changes were seen in the efficiency of competitor suppression for some competitor types in the spoken modality. These data reveal some developmental continuity in the process of word recognition independent of modality but also some instances of independence in how competitors are activated. Stimuli, data, and analyses from this project are available at: https://osf.io/eav72.

Keywords

Development word recognition visual world paradigm visual word recognition spoken word recognition

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allopenna

P. D.

Magnuson

J. S.

Tanenhaus

M. K.

(1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(4), 419–439. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2558

Apfelbaum

K. S.

Klein-Packard

McMurray

(2021). The pictures who shall not be named: Empirical support for benefits of preview in the Visual World Paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 121, Article 104279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2021.104279

Carreiras

Perea

(2002). Masked priming effects with syllabic neighbors in a lexical decision task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(5), 1228–1242. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.28.5.1228

Chambers

S. M.

(1979). Letter and order information in lexical access. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(2), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90136-1

Connine

C. M.

Blasko

D. G.

Titone

(1993). Do the beginnings of spoken words have a special status in auditory word recognition? Journal of Memory and Language, 32(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1011

Dahan

Gaskell

M. G.

(2007). The temporal dynamics of ambiguity resolution: Evidence from spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 483–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.01.001

Desroches

A. S.

Newman

R. L. L.

Joanisse

M. F.

(2009). Investigating the time course of spoken word recognition: Electrophysiological evidence for the influences of phonological similarity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(10), 1893–1906. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.21142

Diehl

R. L.

Kluender

K. R.

Foss

D. J.

Parker

E. M.

Gernsbacher

M. A.

(1987). Vowels as islands of reliability. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 564–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(87)90143-4

Dollaghan

(1998). Spoken word recognition in children with and without specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19(2), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716400010031

10.

Dufour

Grainger

(2019). Phoneme-order encoding during spoken word recognition: A priming investigation. Cognitive Science, 43(10), Article e12785. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12785

11.

Estes

W. K.

Allmeyer

D. H.

Reder

S. M.

(1976). Serial position functions for letter identification at brief and extended exposure durations. Perception & Psychophysics, 19(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199379

12.

Farris-Trimble

McMurray

(2013). Test–retest reliability of eye tracking in the Visual World Paradigm for the study of real-time spoken word recognition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56, 1328–1346. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388

13.

Fernald

Perfors

Marchman

V. A.

(2006). Picking up speed in understanding: Speech processing efficiency and vocabulary growth across the 2nd year. Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.98

14.

Fernald

Pinto

J. P.

Swingley

Weinberg

McRoberts

G. W.

(1998). Rapid gains in speed of verbal processing by infants in the 2nd year. Psychological Science, 9(3), 228–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00044

15.

Frauenfelder

U. H.

Scholten

Content

(2001). Bottom-up inhibition in lexical selection: Phonological mismatch effects in spoken word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16(5–6), 583–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960143000146

16.

Galle

M. E.

Klein-Packard

Schreiber

McMurray

(2019). What are you waiting for? Real-time integration of cues for fricatives suggests encapsulated auditory memory. Cognitive Science, 43(1), Article e12700. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12700

17.

Gregg

Inhoff

A. W.

Connine

C. M.

(2019). Re-reconsidering the role of temporal order in spoken word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(11), 2574–2583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819849512

18.

Harm

M. W.

Seidenberg

M. S.

(2004). Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review, 111(3), 662–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.662

19.

Havy

Bertoncini

Nazzi

(2011). Word learning and phonetic processing in preschool-age children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.08.002

20.

Hendrickson

Apfelbaum

Goodwin

Blomquist

Klein

McMurray

(2021). The profile of real-time competition in spoken and written word recognition: More similar than different. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211056842

21.

Huestegge

Radach

Corbic

Huestegge

S. M.

(2009). Oculomotor and linguistic determinants of reading development: A longitudinal study. Vision Research, 49(24), 2948–2959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2009.09.012

22.

Huettig

Rommers

Meyer

A. S.

(2011). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 137(2), 151–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.11.003

23.

Magnuson

J. S.

Dixon

J. A.

Tanenhaus

M. K.

Aslin

R. N.

(2007). The dynamics of lexical competition during spoken word recognition. Cognitive Science, 31(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210709336987

24.

Marslen-Wilson

W. D.

(1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition, 25(1–2), 71–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(87)90005-9

25.

Marslen-Wilson

W. D.

Moss

H. E.

van Halen

(1996). Perceptual distance and competition in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(6), 1376–1392. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.22.6.1376

26.

Marslen-Wilson

W. D.

Warren

(1994). Levels of perceptual representation and process in lexical access: Words, phonemes, and features. Psychological Review, 101(4), 653–675. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.653

27.

Marslen-Wilson

W. D.

Zwitserlood

(1989). Accessing spoken words: The importance of word onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15(3), 576–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.15.3.576

28.

McClelland

J. L.

Elman

J. L.

(1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 1–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90015-0

29.

McClelland

J. L.

Rumelhart

D. E.

(1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88(5), 375–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.5.375

30.

McConkie

G. W.

Kerr

P. W.

Reddix

M. D.

Zola

(1988). Eye movement control during reading: I. The location of initial eye fixations on words. Vision Research, 28(10), 1107–1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(88)90137-X

31.

McMurray

Apfelbaum

K. S.

Tomblin

J. B.

(in press). The slow development of real-time processing: Spoken Word Recognition as a crucible for new thinking about language acquisition and disorders. Current Directions in Psychological Science. https://psyarxiv.com/uebfc/

32.

McMurray

Danelz

Rigler

Seedorff

(2018). Speech categorization develops slowly through adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 54(8), 1472–1491. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000542

33.

McMurray

Ellis

T. P.

Apfelbaum

K. S.

(2019). How do you deal with uncertainty? Cochlear implant users differ in the dynamics of lexical processing of noncanonical inputs. Ear and Hearing, 40(4), 961–980. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000681

34.

McMurray

Jongman

(2011). What information is necessary for speech categorization? Harnessing variability in the speech signal by integrating cues computed relative to expectations. Psychological Review, 118(2), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022325

35.

McMurray

Klein-Packard

Tomblin

J. B.

(2019). A real-time mechanism underlying lexical deficits in developmental language disorder: Between-word inhibition. Cognition, 191, Article 104000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.012

36.

McMurray

Samelson

V. M.

Lee

S. H.

Tomblin

J. B.

(2010). Individual differences in online spoken word recognition: Implications for SLI. Cognitive Psychology, 60(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.06.003

37.

Perea

(1998). Orthographic neighbours are not all equal: Evidence using an identification technique. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909698386609

38.

Perea

Lupker

S. J.

(2003). Transposed-letter confusability effects in masked form priming. In Kinoshita

Lupker

S. J.

(Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 97–120). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203502846

39.

Pitt

M. A.

Samuel

A. G.

(2006). Word length and lexical activation: Longer is better. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(5), 1120–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.5.1120

40.

Rastle

Coltheart

(1999). Serial and strategic effects in reading aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(2), 482–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.2.482

41.

Rayner

(1986). Eye movements and the perceptual span in beginning and skilled readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(86)90037-8

42.

Rigler

Farris-Trimble

Greiner

Walker

Tomblin

J. B.

McMurray

(2015). The slow developmental time course of real-time spoken word recognition. Developmental Psychology, 51(12), 1690–1703. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000044

43.

Roembke

T. C.

Hazeltine

Reed

D. K.

McMurray

(2019). Automaticity of word recognition is a unique predictor of reading fluency in middle-school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(2), 314–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000279

44.

Roembke

T. C.

Hazeltine

Reed

D. K.

McMurray

(2021). Automaticity as an independent trait in predicting reading outcomes in middle-school. Developmental Psychology, 57, 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001153

45.

Schreiber

K. E.

McMurray

(2019). Listeners can anticipate future segments before they identify the current one. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 81(4), 1147–1166. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01712-9

46.

Seidenberg

M. S.

McClelland

J. L.

(1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96(4), 523–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.523

47.

Sekerina

I. A.

Brooks

P. J.

(2007). Eye movements during spoken word recognition in Russian children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 98(1), 20–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2007.04.005

48.

Simmons

E. S.

Magnuson

(2018). Word length, proportion of overlap, and phonological competition in spoken word recognition. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society, 40, 1062–1067.

49.

Storkel

H. L.

Hoover

J. R.

(2010). An online calculator to compute phonotactic probability and neighborhood density on the basis of child corpora of spoken American English. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 497–506. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.497

50.

Toscano

J. C.

Anderson

N. D.

McMurray

(2013). Reconsidering the role of temporal order in spoken word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 981–987. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0417-0

51.

Vorstius

Radach

Lonigan

C. J.

(2014). Eye movements in developing readers: A comparison of silent and oral sentence reading. Visual Cognition, 22(3), 458–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2014.881445

52.

Weber

Scharenborg

(2012). Models of spoken-word recognition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(3), 387–401. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1178

53.

White

S. J.

Johnson

R. L.

Liversedge

S. P.

Rayner

(2008). Eye movements when reading transposed text: The importance of word-beginning letters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(5), 1261–1276. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.5.1261

54.

Zhang

Samuel

A. G.

(2018). Is speech recognition automatic? Lexical competition, but not initial lexical access, requires cognitive resources. Journal of Memory and Language, 100, 32–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.01.002

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB