Phonotactics, density, and entropy in spoken word recognition

By Paul A. Luce, N. R. Large. 2001

154 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fcfa26e71727f3bac619c21e195100ef7a98efc0

How researchers see this paper

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

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Eight questions about spoken-word recognition (2007, background): “Thus, as the number and frequency of similar-sounding words increases, word recognition becomes harder (Cluff & Luce, 1990; Luce & Large, 2001; Luce & Pisoni, 1998; Vitevitch, 2002; Vitevitch & Luce, 1998, 1999).”
Bilingual Minds (2009, background): “…within-language alternatives as monolinguals do to select among close semantic neighbors (words that share semantic features, e.g., cup vs. mug; Luce & Large, 2001; Mirman & Magnuson, 2008; Vitevitch, 2002) but also from between-language alternatives for the same concepts (e.g., cup vs. tasse).”
The locus of the orthographic consistency effect in auditory word recognition (2004, background): “Although sublexical and lexical representations may become activated at similar time scales, there is evidence that these two levels of representation have dissociable effects on processing (e.g., Vitevitch & Luce, 1998; 1999; see also Luce & Large, 2001).”
Increases in phonotactic probability facilitate spoken nonword repetition. (2005, background): “Although we believe that there is sufficient subsequent evidence for our original claims (see, for example, the reversal of the probability effect and the results for the bisyllabic stimuli in Vitevitch & Luce (1999); as well as Luce & Large, 2001; and Vitevitch, 2003), we acknowledge that, taken ”
Phonological Neighborhood Effects in Spoken Word Perception and Production (2016, background): “For example, Luce & Large (2001) found that when listeners were presented with a spoken nonsense word, such as /fin/, and asked to say the first real English word that came to mind, more than 70% of the responses differed from the stimulus word by a single phoneme (also see Vitevitch et al. 2014a).”
A Web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English (2004, background): “However, with careful stimulus selection, it is possible to control one variable while manipulating the other (e.g., Vitevitch, 2002b; Vitevitch et al., 2004), or to independently manipulate both variables (e.g., Luce & Large, 2001; Vitevitch et al., 2004).”
Locus of orthographic effects in spoken word recognition: Novel insights from the neighbour generation task (2004, methodology): “The neighbour generation task is thought to provide a useful tool for exploring the structure of lexical space (Luce & Large, 2001).”