Phoneme similarity and confusability

113 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Sub-Segmental Detail in Early Lexical Representations. (2008, background): “Bailey and Hahn (2005) recently compared several measures as predictors of phoneme similarity judgments and concluded, ‘‘our current best measure of phoneme similarity .”
The New C Standard (Excerpted material) An Economic and Cultural Commentary (2008, unknown): “word stress 792 A study by Bailey and Hahn[17] compared two of the main approaches to measuring phonological similarity (for the case of single syllable words), one empirically derived from measurements of confusability and the other based on a theoretical analysis of phonological features.”
Half rhymes in Japanese rap lyrics and knowledge of similarity (2007, background): “…and rhymability, as a first approximation, the similarity of consonant pairs was estimated in terms of how many feature specifications they each had in common (Bailey and Hahn 2005; Klatt 1968; Shattuck-Huffnagel and Klatt 1977; Stemberger 1991): other models of similarity are discussed below.”
Phonological specificity of vowels and consonants in early lexical representations (2007, unknown): “Indeed, previous research has found that the degree of correlation between adult ratings of perceived similarity of phonemes and phonemic feature similarity measures supports the use of the latter in psycholinguistic testing (Bailey & Hahn, 2005, p. 356).”