» Articles » PMID: 24687026

Individual Differences in Language Ability Are Related to Variation in Word Recognition, Not Speech Perception: Evidence from Eye Movements

Overview
Date 2014 Apr 2
PMID 24687026
Citations 20
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: The authors examined speech perception deficits associated with individual differences in language ability, contrasting auditory, phonological, or lexical accounts by asking whether lexical competition is differentially sensitive to fine-grained acoustic variation.

Method: Adolescents with a range of language abilities (N = 74, including 35 impaired) participated in an experiment based on McMurray, Tanenhaus, and Aslin (2002). Participants heard tokens from six 9-step voice onset time (VOT) continua spanning 2 words (beach/peach, beak/peak, etc.) while viewing a screen containing pictures of those words and 2 unrelated objects. Participants selected the referent while eye movements to each picture were monitored as a measure of lexical activation. Fixations were examined as a function of both VOT and language ability.

Results: Eye movements were sensitive to within-category VOT differences: As VOT approached the boundary, listeners made more fixations to the competing word. This did not interact with language ability, suggesting that language impairment is not associated with differential auditory sensitivity or phonetic categorization. Listeners with poorer language skills showed heightened competitors fixations overall, suggesting a deficit in lexical processes.

Conclusion: Language impairment may be better characterized by a deficit in lexical competition (inability to suppress competing words), rather than differences in phonological categorization or auditory abilities.

Citing Articles

Arabic consonant length perception depends on the relative speech rate of the distal context.

Heffner C, Al-Thowaini B, Rytting C PLoS One. 2024; 19(10):e0312249.

PMID: 39436869 PMC: 11495589. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312249.


Understanding language processing in variable populations on their own terms: Towards a functionalist psycholinguistics of individual differences, development, and disorders.

McMurray B, Baxelbaum K, Colby S, Tomblin J Appl Psycholinguist. 2024; 44(4):565-592.

PMID: 39072293 PMC: 11280349. DOI: 10.1017/s0142716423000255.


The development of real-time spoken and word recognition derives from changes in ability, not maturation.

Kutlu E, Klein-Packard J, Jeppsen C, Tomblin J, McMurray B Cognition. 2024; 251:105899.

PMID: 39059118 PMC: 11470444. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105899.


The Slow Development of Real-Time Processing: Spoken-Word Recognition as a Crucible for New Thinking About Language Acquisition and Language Disorders.

McMurray B, Apfelbaum K, Tomblin J Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2023; 31(4):305-315.

PMID: 37663784 PMC: 10473872. DOI: 10.1177/09637214221078325.


Lexical processing of nouns and verbs at 36 months of age predicts concurrent and later vocabulary and school readiness.

Koenig A, Arunachalam S, Saudino K J Cogn Dev. 2021; 21(5):670-689.

PMID: 33727892 PMC: 7959190. DOI: 10.1080/15248372.2020.1802277.


References
1.
Neville H, Coffey S, Holcomb P, Tallal P . The neurobiology of sensory and language processing in language-impaired children. J Cogn Neurosci. 2013; 5(2):235-53. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.1993.5.2.235. View

2.
MacDonald M, Pearlmutter N, Seidenberg M . The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution [corrected]. Psychol Rev. 1994; 101(4):676-703. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.676. View

3.
Remez R, Rubin P, Pisoni D, Carrell T . Speech perception without traditional speech cues. Science. 1981; 212(4497):947-9. DOI: 10.1126/science.7233191. View

4.
Luce P, Pisoni D . Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood activation model. Ear Hear. 1998; 19(1):1-36. PMC: 3467695. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199802000-00001. View

5.
Oden G, Massaro D . Integration of featural information in speech perception. Psychol Rev. 1978; 85(3):172-91. View