Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 231
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Binder, Jeffrey R. 2016. Neurobiology of Language.

    Goh, Winston D. Yap, Melvin J. Lau, Mabel C. Ng, Melvin M. R. and Tan, Luuan-Chin 2016. Semantic Richness Effects in Spoken Word Recognition: A Lexical Decision and Semantic Categorization Megastudy. Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 7,

    Gow, David W. and Olson, Bruna B. 2016. Sentential influences on acoustic-phonetic processing: a Granger causality analysis of multimodal imaging data. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, Vol. 31, Issue. 7, p. 841.

    Gow, David W. and Olson, Bruna B. 2016. Using effective connectivity analyses to understand processing architecture: response to commentaries by Samuel, Spivey and McQueen, Eisner and Norris. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, Vol. 31, Issue. 7, p. 869.

    Iverson, Paul Wagner, Anita and Rosen, Stuart 2016. Effects of language experience on pre-categorical perception: Distinguishing general from specialized processes in speech perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 139, Issue. 4, p. 1799.

    Kwon, Youan Choi, Sungmook and Lee, Yoonhyoung 2016. Early use of orthographic information in spoken word recognition: Event-related potential evidence from the Korean language. Psychophysiology, Vol. 53, Issue. 4, p. 544.

    Larraza, Saioa Samuel, Arthur G. and Oñederra, Miren Lourdes 2016. Where do dialectal effects on speech processing come from? Evidence from a cross-dialect investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, p. 1.

    Llompart, Miquel and Casillas, Joseph V. 2016. Lexically driven selective adaptation by ambiguous auditory stimuli occurs after limited exposure to adaptors. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 139, Issue. 5, p. EL172.

    McQueen, James M. Eisner, Frank and Norris, Dennis 2016. When brain regions talk to each other during speech processing, what are they talking about? Commentary on Gow and Olson (2015). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, Vol. 31, Issue. 7, p. 860.

    Norris, Dennis McQueen, James M. and Cutler, Anne 2016. Prediction, Bayesian inference and feedback in speech recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, Vol. 31, Issue. 1, p. 4.

    Pisoni, David B. and McLennan, Conor T. 2016. Neurobiology of Language.

    Samuel, Arthur G. 2016. Commentary on “Sentential influences on acoustic-phonetic processing: a Granger causality analysis of multimodal imaging data”. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, Vol. 31, Issue. 7, p. 864.

    Apfelbaum, Keith S. and McMurray, Bob 2015. Relative cue encoding in the context of sophisticated models of categorization: Separating information from categorization. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Vol. 22, Issue. 4, p. 916.

    CARLSON, MATTHEW T. GOLDRICK, MATTHEW BLASINGAME, MICHAEL and FINK, ANGELA 2015. Navigating conflicting phonotactic constraints in bilingual speech perception. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, p. 1.

    Chen, Yuanyuan Davis, Matthew H. Pulvermüller, Friedemann and Hauk, Olaf 2015. Early Visual Word Processing Is Flexible: Evidence from Spatiotemporal Brain Dynamics. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 27, Issue. 9, p. 1738.

    Coene, Martine van der Lee, Anneke and Govaerts, Paul J. 2015. Spoken Word Recognition Errors in Speech Audiometry: A Measure of Hearing Performance?. BioMed Research International, Vol. 2015, p. 1.

    Goss, Seth and Tamaoka, Katsuo 2015. Predicting lexical accent perception in native Japanese speakers: An investigation of acoustic pitch sensitivity and working memory. Japanese Psychological Research, Vol. 57, Issue. 2, p. 143.

    Gow, David W. and Olson, Bruna B. 2015. Lexical mediation of phonotactic frequency effects on spoken word recognition: A Granger causality analysis of MRI-constrained MEG/EEG data. Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 82, p. 41.

    Kapnoula, Efthymia C. Packard, Stephanie Gupta, Prahlad and McMurray, Bob 2015. Immediate lexical integration of novel word forms. Cognition, Vol. 134, p. 85.

    Lupyan, Gary 2015. Object knowledge changes visual appearance: Semantic effects on color afterimages. Acta Psychologica, Vol. 161, p. 117.


Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary

  • Dennis Norris (a1), James M. McQueen (a2) and Anne Cutler (a2)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 June 2000

Top-down feedback does not benefit speech recognition; on the contrary, it can hinder it. No experimental data imply that feedback loops are required for speech recognition. Feedback is accordingly unnecessary and spoken word recognition is modular. To defend this thesis, we analyse lexical involvement in phonemic decision making. TRACE (McClelland & Elman 1986), a model with feedback from the lexicon to prelexical processes, is unable to account for all the available data on phonemic decision making. The modular Race model (Cutler & Norris 1979) is likewise challenged by some recent results, however. We therefore present a new modular model of phonemic decision making, the Merge model. In Merge, information flows from prelexical processes to the lexicon without feedback. Because phonemic decisions are based on the merging of prelexical and lexical information, Merge correctly predicts lexical involvement in phonemic decisions in both words and nonwords. Computer simulations show how Merge is able to account for the data through a process of competition between lexical hypotheses. We discuss the issue of feedback in other areas of language processing and conclude that modular models are particularly well suited to the problems and constraints of speech recognition.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • ISSN: 0140-525X
  • EISSN: 1469-1825
  • URL: /core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *