Due to phonemic restoration, listeners can reliably perceive words when a phoneme is replaced with noise. The cost associated with this process was investigated along with the effect of lexical uniqueness on phonemic restoration, using data from a lexical decision experiment where noise replaced phonemes that were either uniqueness points (the phoneme at which a word deviates from all nonrelated words that share the same onset) or phonemes immediately prior to these. A baseline condition was also included with no noise-interrupted stimuli. Results showed a significant cost of phonemic restoration, with 100 ms longer word identification times and a 14% decrease in word identification accuracy for interrupted stimuli compared to the baseline. Regression analysis of response times from the interrupted conditions showed no effect of whether the interrupted phoneme was a uniqueness point, but significant effects for several temporal attributes of the stimuli, including the duration and position of the interrupted segment. These results indicate that uniqueness points are not distinct breakpoints in the cohort reduction that occurs during lexical processing, but that temporal properties of the interrupted stimuli are central to auditory word recognition. These results are interpreted in the context of models of speech perception.

1.
Altmann
,
G. T. M.
, and
Carter
,
D. M.
(
1989
). “
Lexical stress and lexical discriminability: Stressed syllables are more informative, but why?
,”
Comput. Speech Lang.
3
,
265
275
.
2.
Balling
,
L. W.
, and
Baayen
,
R. H.
(
2008
). “
Morphological effects in auditory word recognition: Evidence from Danish
,”
Lang. Cogn. Process.
23
,
1159
1190
.
3.
Balling
,
L. W.
, and
Baayen
,
R. H.
(
2012
). “
Probability and surprisal in auditory comprehension of morphologically complex words
,”
Cognition
125
,
80
106
.
4.
Bashford
,
J. A.
,
Riener
,
K. R.
, and
Warren
,
R. M.
(
1992
). “
Increasing the intelligibility of speech through multiple phonemic restorations
,”
Percept. Psychophys.
51
(
3
),
211
217
.
5.
Bashford
,
J. A.
, and
Warren
,
R. M.
(
1987
). “
Multiple phonemic restorations follow the rules for auditory induction
,”
Percept. Psychophys.
42
,
114
121
.
6.
Başkent
,
D.
,
Eiler
,
C. L.
, and
Edwards
,
B.
(
2010
). “
Phonemic restoration by hearing-impaired listeners with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss
,”
Hear. Res.
260
,
54
62
.
7.
Bates
,
D.
,
Mächler
,
M.
,
Bolker
,
B.
, and
Walker
,
S.
(
2015
). “
Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4
,”
J. Stat. Softw.
67
,
1
48
.
8.
Boersma
,
P.
, and
Weenink
,
D.
(
2012
). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [computer program], http://www.praat.org.
9.
Cutler
,
A.
(
1976
). “
Phoneme-monitoring reaction time as a function of preceding intonation contour
,”
Atten. Percept. Psychophys.
20
,
55
60
.
10.
Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab (n.d.).
KorpusDK. [The Danish Language and Literary Societies KorpusDK], available at http://korpus.dsl.dk/resources.html.
11.
Forster
,
K. I.
, and
Forster
,
J. C.
(
2003
). “
DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy
,”
Behavior Res. Methods, Instrum. Comput.
35
,
116
124
.
12.
Grose
,
J. H.
,
Menezes
,
D. C.
,
Porter
,
H. L.
, and
Griz
,
S.
(
2016
). “
Masking period patterns and forward masking for speech-shaped noise: Age-related effects
,”
Ear. Hear.
37
,
48
54
.
13.
Grossberg
,
S.
, and
Kazerounian
,
S.
(
2011
). “
Laminar cortical dynamics of conscious speech perception: Neural model of phonemic restoration using subsequent context in noise
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
130
,
440
460
.
14.
Kuznetsova
,
A.
,
Bruun Brockhoff
,
P.
, and
Haubo Bojesen Christensen
,
R.
(
2016
). lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models, available at https://cran.r-project.org/package=lmerTest.
15.
Marslen-Wilson
,
W. D.
(
1984
). “
Function and process in spoken word recognition
,” in
Attention and Performance X: Control of Language Processes
, edited by
H.
Bouma
and
D. G.
Bouwhuis
(
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
,
Hillsdale, NJ
), pp.
125
150
.
16.
Marslen-Wilson
,
W. D.
(
1990
). “
Activation, competition and frequency in lexical access
,” in
Cognitive Models of Speech Processing: Psycholinguistic and Computational Perspectives
, edited by
G.
Altmann
(
MIT Press
,
Cambridge, MA
), pp.
148
172
.
17.
Norris
,
D.
, and
McQueen
,
J. M.
(
2008
). “
Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition
,”
Psychol. Rev.
115
,
357
395
.
18.
Oxenham
,
A. J.
(
2001
). “
Forward masking: Adaptation or integration?
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
109
,
732
741
.
19.
R Core Team
. (
2016
). R: A language and environment for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria, available at http://www.r-project.org/.
20.
Samuel
,
A. G.
(
1981
). “
Phonemic restoration: Insights from a new methodology
,”
J. Exp. Psychol. Gen.
110
,
474
494
.
21.
Samuel
,
A. G.
(
1987
). “
Lexical uniqueness effects on phonemic restoration
,”
J. Mem. Lang.
26
,
36
56
.
22.
Samuel
,
A. G.
, and
Ressler
,
W. H.
(
1986
). “
Attention within auditory word perception: Insights from the phonemic restoration illusion
,”
J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform.
12
,
70
79
.
23.
Warren
,
R. M.
(
1970
). “
Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds
,”
Science
167
,
392
393
.
24.
Warren
,
R. M.
, and
Obusek
,
C. J.
(
1971
). “
Speech perception and phonemic restorations
,”
Attent. Percept. Psychophys.
9
,
358
362
.
25.
Warren
,
R. M.
, and
Sherman
,
G. L.
(
1974
). “
Phonemic restorations based on subsequent context
,”
Atten. Percept. Psychophys.
16
,
150
156
.

Supplementary Material

You do not currently have access to this content.