Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T20:16:36.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bottoms up! How top-down pitfalls ensnare speech perception researchers, too

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2017

Anne Cutler  and
Dennis Norris
Anne Cutler
Affiliation:
The MARCS Institute, Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South, NSW 2751, Australiaa.cutler@westernsydney.edu.auwww.westernsydney.edu.au/marcs/our_team/researchers/professor_anne_cutler
Dennis Norris
Affiliation:
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge CB2 2EF, United Kingdom. dennis.norris@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.ukwww.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/dennis.norris
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Not only can the pitfalls that Firestone & Scholl (F&S) identify be generalised across multiple studies within the field of visual perception, but also they have general application outside the field wherever perceptual and cognitive processing are compared. We call attention to the widespread susceptibility of research on the perception of speech to versions of the same pitfalls.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e236
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Elman, J. L. & McClelland, J. L. (1988) Cognitive penetration of the mechanisms of perception: Compensation for coarticulation of lexically restored phonemes. Journal of Memory and Language 27:143–65.Google Scholar
Fox, R. A. (1984) Effect of lexical status on phonetic categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10:526–40.Google Scholar
Ganong, W. F. (1980) Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 6:110–25.Google Scholar
Hay, J. & Drager, K. (2010) Stuffed toys and speech perception. Linguistics 48:865–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, J., Nolan, A. & Drager, K. (2006) From fush to feesh: Exemplar priming in speech perception. The Linguistic Review 23:351–79.Google Scholar
McGurk, H. & MacDonald, J. (1976) Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 264:746–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McQueen, J. M. (1991) The influence of the lexicon on phonetic categorization: Stimulus quality in word-final ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 17:433–43.Google Scholar
Niedzielski, N. (1999) The effect of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic variables. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18:62–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, D., McQueen, J. M. & Cutler, A. (2000) Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23:299–370.Google Scholar
Norris, D., McQueen, J. M. & Cutler, A. (2016) Prediction, Bayesian inference and feedback in speech recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31(1):4–18. doi:10.1080/23273798.2015.1081703.Google Scholar
Pitt, M. A. & McQueen, J. M. (1998) Is compensation for coarticulation mediated by the lexicon? Journal of Memory and Language 39:347–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, A. (2001) Help or hindrance: How violation of different assimilation rules affects spoken-language processing. Language and Speech 44:95–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed