32.3611, Review: Applied Linguistics; Cognitive Science; Phonetics; Psycholinguistics: Pardo, Nygaard, Remez, Pisoni (2021)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-32-3611. Mon Nov 15 2021. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 32.3611, Review: Applied Linguistics; Cognitive Science; Phonetics; Psycholinguistics: Pardo, Nygaard, Remez, Pisoni (2021)

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn, Lauren Perkins
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Nils Hjortnaes, Joshua Sims, Billy Dickson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 22:56:18
From: Sviatlana Karpava [karpava.sviatlana at ucy.ac.cy]
Subject: The Handbook of Speech Perception, 2nd Edition

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36734477


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/32/32-2197.html

EDITOR: Jennifer S. Pardo
EDITOR: Lynne C. Nygaard
EDITOR: Robert E. Remez
EDITOR: David B. Pisoni
TITLE: The Handbook of Speech Perception, 2nd Edition
SERIES TITLE: Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics
PUBLISHER: Wiley
YEAR: 2021

REVIEWER: Sviatlana Karpava

SUMMARY 

The Handbook of Speech Perception, edited by Jennifer S. Pardo, Lynne C.
Nygaard, Robert E. Remez, and David B. Pisoni, provides an overview of the
current international research in the area of speech perception. The book is a
collection of 25 chapters that are organized into 5 parts: Part I, Sensing
Speech, Part II, Perception of Linguistic Properties, Part III, Perception of
Indexical Properties, Part IV, Speech Perception by Special Listeners, and
Part V, Theoretical Perspective on Speech Perception. 

Part I: Sensing Speech is composed of four chapters. Chapter 1, ‘Perceptual
Organization of Speech’ by R.E. Remez, is an attempt to answer the question:
How does a perceiver resolve the linguistic properties of an utterance? The
author supports the idea of the modularity of the speech perception models
(Fodor, 1983). Researchers working on the perceptual organization of speech
should pay attention not only to the principles of auditory perceptual
organization, but also to perceptual organization and the gestalt legacy, a
generic auditory model of organization, and the nature of speech cues (Bregman
et al., 1990). The constraint on normative descriptions of both speech
perception and multisensory perceptual organization are discussed. 

Chapter 2, ‘Primacy of Multimodal Speech Perception for the Brain and Science’
by Lawrence D. Rosenblum and Josh Dorsi address the issue of multimodal speech
perception and the “multisensory revolution” (e.g., Rosenblum, 2013), which
presupposes neurophysiological and behavioural flexibility with perceptual
modality and cross-modal modulation of primary and secondary sensory cortexes
in humans (Rosenblum, Dias, & Dorsi, 2016). It describes the ubiquity and
automaticity of multisensory speech in human behaviour, the stage of the
speech streams integration and supramodality of speech perception. 

Chapter 3, ‘How Does the Brain Represent Speech?’ by Oiwi Parker Jones and Jan
W. H. Schnupp delves into the interface between the brain’s auditory system
and speech representation. It is important to understand how the brain
represents the both the acoustics and the phonetic, prosodic, and semantic
features of the speech. The chapter will present the complexity of anatomy
regarding which physiological mechanisms and structures are responsible for
our ability to hear. Recent research implementing functional brain imaging and
invasive electrophysiological recordings provide a deeper insight into speech
representations, especially considering higher‐order cortical structures.

In Chapter 4, ‘Perceptual Control of Speech’ by K. G. Munhall, Anja‐Xiaoxing
Cui, Ellen O’Donoghue, Steven Lamontagne and David Lutes the authors
investigate the perceptual control of speech production, the link between the
speech motor system, auditory system and sensory feedback, the processing of
sensory input, hearing others and hearing your own voice, error detection and
correction (Bridgeman, 2007; Meyer, Huettig, & Levelt, 2016). They provide
examples of the study of natural and experimental deafening in humans and
birds and the real‐time manipulations of auditory feedback through rapid
signal processing as well as the neural processing of self‐produced sound,
vocal learning, birdsong, and the interrelationship between speech perception
and speech production.

Part II: Perception of Linguistic Properties includes eight chapters. Chapter
5, ‘Features in Speech Perception and Lexical Access’ by Sheila E. Blumstein
examines the processes and mechanisms used in speech perception and word
recognition. A debate exists regarding the nature of the representations that
are used in perceiving speech and in lexical access as there are individual
differences regarding speech signals, vocal tract sizes, speech production and
perception due to contextual factors. The researchers use behavioural,
psychoacoustic, and neural evidence to prove that the features of phonetic
segments, which are represented in terms of invariant (stable) acoustic
properties with graded mapping from sounds to words, are important for speech
perception and lexical access. 

Chapter 6, ‘Speaker Normalization in Speech Perception’ by Keith Johnson and
Matthias J. Sjerps deals with the cognitive representation of social phonetic
variation (Thomas, 2011) and the listener’s ability to “normalize” for talker
differences in speech perception (Johnson, 1997). Talkers differ in many ways,
for example, in the choice of linguistic variants for particular words.
Listeners can differentiate between social or personal word pronunciation
based on their experience and associations with particular variants of words
and pragmatic contexts, a multiple listing of variants, a top‐down parsing
process and perceptual learning. The authors provide examples from behavioural
and neuroimaging studies that provide evidence suggesting the existence of
expectation‐guided coherence‐lending mechanisms in speech perception.

In Chapter 7, ‘Clear Speech Perception: Linguistic and Cognitive Benefits’
Rajka Smiljanic looks into clear speech perception and in which way
acoustic‐articulatory features contribute to intelligibility improvement
regarding cognitive‐perceptual processes and individual listener
characteristics. Talkers adapt their speech depending on the communicative
context (e.g., communication involving a foreigner, an infant, interlocutors
with perceptual difficulties, low proficiency and/or a noisy environment), and
use a clear speaking style (Cristia, 2013; Johnson et al., 2013). The
researcher writes about the characteristics and effectiveness of clear speech
in enhanced speech intelligibility and provides two reviews regarding the
effect of the instruction and communication environment on speech
intelligibility (Pichora‐Fuller et al., 2010) and algorithmic and human
context‐induced speech modifications and their effect on speech processing
(Cooke et al., 2013a).

Chapter 8, ‘A Comprehensive Approach to Specificity Effects in Spoken‐Word
Recognition’ by Conor T. Mclennan and Sara Incera explores the specificity
effects in spoken‐word recognition, particularly the role of the talker
(inter‐talker and intra‐talker variability), the speech signal, and the
listener; the chapter also examines the context, including environmental
background sounds, in the representation and processing of specificity in
spoken words (Mirman, 2016). The authors delve into different theoretical
frameworks and new research questions regarding a comprehensive approach to
investigating spoken‐word recognition. Researchers working in the field of
spoken‐word recognition are interested in the nature of the representation(s)
for each word and how listeners process the incoming signal (Choi et al.,
2018; Vitevitch and Luce, 2016).

In Chapter 9, ‘Word Stress in Speech Perception’ Anne Cutler and Alexandra
Jesse discuss the role of word stress in speech perception. Some linguistic
elements have a greater salience (e.g., words stressed within a sentence, or
some syllables stressed within words). Information structure, which is
universal, is the determinant factor for the positioning of stress at the
sentence level, whereas word phonology, which is language specific, is the
determinant factor at the lexical level. Not every language has word stress,
but in languages with word stress segmentally matched stressed and unstressed
syllables are characterised by different acoustic dimensions and vocabulary
structure. Stress placement affects speech perception. The authors emphasise
the importance of cues for stress location in the language‐specific vocabulary
patterns and the activation and competition processes involved in stress
placement. 

In Chapter 10, ‘Slips of the Ear’ Z. S. Bond investigates the issue of speech
perception and the instances when the content is obscure, the speech is
indistinct or muffled, or the listeners experience a slip of the ear, meaning
mishearing or misperceptions. The author explores the role of the listeners’
knowledge in these slips, which listeners must employ to recover and resolve
unclear or ambiguous utterances. Thus, successful speech perception should
match the talker’s production; listeners should be able to perceive and
recover the information conveyed. The author provides an overview of all slips
of the ear with 250 new examples based on conversations between adults
speaking a variety of American English (Shockey & Bond, 2007, 2014), paying
attention to the challenges with observational data. The focus of the chapter
is on the slips of the tongue and slips of the ear: phonetics, homophones and
near homophones, vowels and stress, consonants, not much phonetic resemblance,
well‐formedness, casual speech, lost consonants, weak closure or constriction,
velarization, /ə/ reduction, palatalization, the shape of words, word
boundaries, nonwords, order of segments, function words, syntax and semantics.
The author also discusses slips of the ear in other languages. 

Chapter 11, ‘Phonotactics in Spoken‐Word Recognition’ by Michael S. Vitevitch
and Faisal M. Aljasser deals with phonotactics and its role in oral word
recognition. According to Crystal (1980), phonotactics refers to the
phonological segments and sequences of phonological segments that are allowed
or prohibited in a particular language. Implicit and explicit knowledge of
phonotactics affects speech perception (Dupoux et al., 2011). The phonotactic
probability can be predicted based on the segments and sequences of segments
that are legal within a given language, which has been measured and observed
behaviourally, with the help of magnetoencephalography (Pylkkänen et al.,
2002), electroencephalography (Hunter, 2013), and hemodynamics (Majerus et
al., 2002). The authors provide an overview and critical analysis of the
research conducted in the area of phonotactics and speech perception, with an
emphasis on new developments in the methods (Vitevitch, 2019). 

In Chapter 12, ‘Perception of Formulaic Speech: Structural and Prosodic
Characteristics of Formulaic Expressions’ Diana Van Lancker Sidtis and Seung
Yun Yang explored the perception of formulaic speech. Formulaic expressions
are present in all languages and have been extensively investigated so far
within different theoretical paradigms (Cutting & Bock, 1997; Pawley & Syder,
1983; Wood, 2006). The authors provide the definition and examples of
formulaic language, its function, mental representation, and evidence for its
unique status in a model of language. They also explore the perceptual
characteristics of formulaic language, and provide an overview of the previous
research. The auditory‐acoustic signal can help to distinguish formulaic
language, in particular idioms and proverbs. They describe two important types
of formulaic intonation: sarcasm and irony. In addition, the chapter is
focused on the dual process model, based on relevant neurological findings,
which differentiates formulaic language and novel expressions as essentially
different modes of language that engage disparate cerebral processes.

Part III: Perception of Indexical Properties consists of five chapters.
Chapter 13, ‘Perception of Dialect Variation’ by Cynthia G. Clopper analyses
the research on perceptual dialectology, including the perceptual
classification of unfamiliar talkers by regional dialect (Clopper & Pisoni,
2005) and the role of experience in shaping perceptual categories for both
children and adults. The researchers are also interested in the nature of the
representation of perceptual dialect categories and how they affect speech
processing (e.g., Bradlow et al., 1999). Dialect variation and individual
talker variability based on gender and idiosyncratic characteristics (Lass et
al., 1976) are important factors to be taken into consideration. Recent
research is focused on the effect of regional dialect on speech perception,
lexical processing, and perceptual adaptation. The authors emphasize the
importance of further research on the interface between linguistic
representation and speech perception and processing with respect to dialect
variation. 

Chapter 14, ‘Who We Are: Signalling Personal Identity in Speech’ by Diana Van
Lancker Sidtis and Romi Zäske deals with issues such as voice recognition,
speech perception and personal identity. Previous research shows that vocal
patterns can be preserved for many years. The unique voice features reflect
personality (Bertau, 2008; Hermans, 1996). Voice perception and recognition
research is based on perceptual, memorial, and response measurement processes.
Children have an innate ability to recognize their mother’s voice (Voegtline
et al., 2013). There are certain challenges in voice perception due to
temporal factors. Recent research examines the nature of the voice as social
object and the auditory‐acoustic cues regarding the recognition or
discrimination of individual voice patterns, taking into consideration the
information carried in the voice and the cerebral functions underlying voice
perception and production. The chapter provides an overview of voice research.
The results of the clinical studies showed that neurological damage can affect
voice perception abilities, whereas functional imaging studies examined brain
processes in the normal listener. 

In Chapter 15, ‘Perceptual Integration of Linguistic and Non‐Linguistic
Properties of Speech’ Lynne C. Nygaard and Christina Y. Tzeng investigate the
linguistic and non-linguistic properties of speech production and perception,
which affects successful social communication. Speech perception research has
focused on the role of such non-linguistic factors as talker‐, group‐, and
context‐specific characteristics of speech on the representation and
processing of spoken language. The authors examine the consequences of
variation in spoken language due to such factors as talker identity, dialect,
speaking rate, vocal effort, emotional tone, and other aspects of prosody
(McCullough et al., 2019; McKenna & Stepp, 2018). 

In Chapter 16, ‘Perceptual Learning of Accented Speech’ Tessa Bent and Melissa
Baese‐Berk explore second language pronunciation. Non-native speakers differ
from native speakers in terms of pronunciation due to L1 transfer and other
linguistic and non-linguistic factors. The production of specific sound
contrasts (phonemes) is affected by the relationship between the phoneme
systems in the speakers’ L1 and L2 and consequently leads to characteristic
accent features (Flege et al., 1999). Accurate word recognition can be
challenging due to the divergences from native norms present in
non-native‐accented speech. The authors mention that there is a systematicity
in speech production by non-native speakers. This systematicity is the focus
of research of linguists and cognitive scientists with the aim of revealing
the fundamental principles underlying learning and generalization, including
perceptual adaptation, category remapping and the retuning of category
boundaries.

Chapter 17, ‘Perception of Indexical Properties of Speech by Children’ by
Susannah V. Levi delves into speech perception. In particular, she examines
talker perception, which is the interaction between talker and linguistic
processing, both for children and adults. The author provides a literature
review on the research conducted in the area of voice discrimination, which
emphasises the ability of the listener to process and understand the
linguistic content of the signal, based on phonetic and linguistic cues (Creel
& Bregman, 2011). A new area of research has emerged with the focus on
speaker/talker properties (Pisoni, 1997), and the relationship between
linguistic processing and talker information. The author reports on the
development of indexical processing and interaction between indexical and
linguistic information in younger (nonadult) listeners.

Part IV: Speech Perception by Special Listeners is comprised of four chapters.
In Chapter 18, ‘Speech Perception by Children: The Structural Refinement and
Differentiation Model’ Susan Nittrouer provides the definition of the term
speech perception and its development over the years, starting approximately
40 years ago. First, the focus was on the process of recovering phonemes from
the acoustic signal related to the practical issues of language acquisition
research (e.g., child and adult speech perception, reading comprehension). At
a later stage, speech perception as a field was more focused on perception as
strictly involving the recovery of phonemes (e.g., Mitterer et al., 2013). The
author examines the difference between children and adults regarding lexicon
and phonemic inventory, sensitivity to acoustic properties in the speech
signal, word‐internal phonemic structure, attentional strategies, and the
development of organizational schemas for the efficient recovery of phonemic
units during speech perception. 

Chapter 19, ‘Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and Auditory‐Visual Integration:
Three Phenomena in Search of Empirical Support’ by Mitchell S. Sommers
investigates speech perception and comprehension and their relevance to human
communication. Accurate speech perception of auditory speech signals can be
affected by external factors such as listening environments and hearing
impairment. Known as a bimodal or auditory-visual (AV) benefit or a visual
enhancement (VE), this combination of auditory and visual speech cues can
enhance the intelligibility and comprehension of oral speech as well as reduce
listening effort, especially under adverse listening conditions (Sommers et
al., 2005; Sommers & Phelps, 2016). The chapter provided examples of an AV
benefit. First, there is the age effect: the younger the learners the more
considerable VE effect is observed (Tye‐Murray et al., 2010, 2016). Second, an
AV benefit is correlated with individual differences. The author investigates
a possible link between the age-related factors and individual variability
regarding the VE enhancement. 

In Chapter 20, ‘Some Neuromyths and Challenging Questions about Cochlear
Implants’ Cynthia R. Hunter and David B. Pisoni present the research on the
long-lasting effect of cochlear implants (CI), neural prostheses, on
spoken‐language processing in deaf adults and children (Wilson & Dorman,
2008). They show the effectiveness of CI in support of speech perception of
deaf adults and children (Wilson et al., 2011). However, there are certain
challenges regarding CI research, clinical practice and CI implementation,
which are addressed by the authors in the chapter. The authors also address
several neuromyths about how CIs work as an interface between the sound
environment and spoken‐language processing in the brain. It is important to
pay attention to individual variability, neuropsychological and cognitive
aspects, audibility and demographic factors when investigating the effect of
CI on speech perception and spoken‐language processing.

Chapter 21, ‘Speech Perception Following Focal Brain Injury’ by Emily B. Myers
looks into the connection of speech perception and aphasia, an acquired
language disorder (Cherney & Robey, 2012; Price, Hope, & Seghier, 2017). There
is a heterogeneity in terms of the type and severity of aphasia (e.g., Broca’s
or nonfluent and Wernicke’s or fluent), and a deficit in receptive and
productive language. The author of the chapter is interested in the case of
aphasia sufferers with deficits in processing at the level of sound structure.
The chapter provides the answer to the following research questions: (1) To
what extent can focal brain injury cause deficits in early stages of the
language‐processing stream and what component processes lead to these
deficits? (2) To what extent can deficits in processing sound structure lead
to comprehension deficits? The chapter has a detailed description of the model
of speech‐sound processing based on the literature review of aphasia and
neuroimaging research. 

Part V: Theoretical Perspectives consists of four chapters. Chapter 22,
‘Acoustic Cues to the Perception of Segmental Phonemes’ by Lawrence J. Raphael
delves into the role of acoustic cues in the perception of segmental phonemes
of human language. The focus is on the human responses to acoustic stimuli
rather than on algorithmic and other analyses of the acoustic signal. The
author describes the nature of acoustic cues, and the effect of factors such
as phonetic context, speaker, and the linguistic experience of listeners on
the primacy of the cues. The listeners can use several cues for perception of
speech sounds, which depends on speech articulation (e.g., vowels, stop
consonants, fricatives and affricates, nasals, semivowels, and
vowels/diphthongs). The chapter discusses the evolution of the concept of the
acoustic cue with relevant examples and previous research analysis (Remez,
2005; Stevens, 2002).

In Chapter 23, ‘On the Relation between Speech Perception and Speech
Production’ by Jennifer S. Pardo and Robert E. Remez delve into the interface
between speech perception and speech production. Speech perception is often
presented in association with production. The sound spectrogram provides a
framework in which to describe phonemes as sounds. Within the cognitive
perspective, the perception of speech was described using phonemes. Within the
psychological perspective, perception and production are interrelated (Parker
et al., 2017). The authors provide a critique regarding the motor underpinning
of speech perception based on the previous studies with the focus on
linguistic phonetics, indexical variation, development, and neurology. They
claim that perception and production are related in a coordinated rather than
a reciprocal way.

Chapter 24, ‘Speech Perception and Reading Ability: What Has Been Learned from
Studies of Categorical Perception, Nonword Repetition, and Speech in Noise?’
by Susan Brady and Axelle Calcus investigates the effect of speech perception
on reading ability. Previous research in the field showed that dyslexia and
other word-reading problems have common underlying phonological problems
(Brady et al., 2011; Pugh & McCardle, 2009). The authors investigated whether
poor reading skills and phonological deficit are related to the initial
encoding of linguistic input and the underlying quality of phoneme
perceptions. Less well‐defined or broader phoneme categories may cause
difficulties in acquiring phoneme awareness and consequently the disruption of
text decoding and comprehension. Phoneme awareness is also related to verbal
and short-term memory as well as to individual speech‐perception differences
and developmental changes in speech perception. The authors review and
critique the research and methodology in the field of speech perception
deficits, in particular three measures of speech perception: categorical
perception, nonword repetition, and speech in noise (Van Hirtum et al., 2019;
Vanvooren et al., 2017). 

In Chapter 25, ‘Cognitive Audiology: An Emerging Landscape in Speech
Perception’ David B. Pisoni deals with speech perception and cognitive
audiology. He looks into the process of speech production under normal
conditions and also as affected by the presence of noise, hearing loss, or an
increase in cognitive workload. Oral speech is characterized by acoustic
variability. Normal‐hearing listeners do not have a problem adapting to a
different speech signal; they can do so without any effect on their ability to
process spoken language, which depends on sensory processing and early
encoding of speech into phonological and lexical representations of the speech
waveform in memory. The author admits that hearing and audibility should not
be examined in isolation from the rest of the human information‐processing
system (Hafter, 2010; Martin & Clark, 2015). The chapter is devoted to the
investigation of cognitive audiology, which is an interdisciplinary field
based on the collaboration of clinicians, speech and hearing scientists, and
cognitive psychologists focused on hearing and speech communication. 

EVALUATION

This volume is an important contribution to the research on speech perception,
which is an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary field comprised of
audiology, speech and hearing sciences, behavioural neuroscience, cognitive
science, computer science and electrical engineering, linguistics, physiology
and biophysics, otology, and experimental psychology. It is addressed to both
specialist and nonspecialist. The emphasis on the specific concerns of the
perception of spoken language, development and growth of the field of speech
perception makes this collection of chapters a unique volume among other books
on language and linguistics. This book is essential reading for students of
linguistics, language acquisition and education, researchers, practitioners,
teachers, educators, and members of the general public who would like to know
more about recent developments in the areas of speech perception. 

REFERENCES

Bertau, M.‐C. (2008). Voice, a pathway to consciousness as “social contact to
oneself.” Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 42, 92–113.

Bradlow, A. R., Nygaard, L. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1999). Effects of talker,
rate, and amplitude variation on recognition memory for spoken words.
Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 206–219.

Brady, S., Braze, D., & Fowler, C. (Eds.). (2011). Explaining individual
differences in reading: Theory and evidence. New York: Psychology Press.

Bregman, A. S., Levitan, R., & Liao, C. (1990). Fusion of auditory components:
effects of the frequency of amplitude modulation. Perception & Psychophysics,
47, 68–73.

Bridgeman, B. (2007). Efference copy and its limitations. Computers in Biology
and Medicine, 37(7), 924–929.

Cherney, L. R., & Robey, R. R. (2012). Aphasia treatment: Recovery, prognosis
and clinical effectiveness. In R. Chapey (Ed.), Language intervention
strategies in aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders (5th Ed.;
pp. 186–202). Wolters Kluwer Health Adis (ESP).

Choi, J. Y., Hu, E. R., & Perrachione, T. K. (2018). Varying acoustic‐phonetic
ambiguity reveals that talker normalization is obligatory in speech
processing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80, 784–797.

Clopper, C. G., & Pisoni, D. B. (2005). Perception of dialect variation. In D.
B. Pisoni & R. E. Remez (Eds.), The handbook of speech perception (pp.
313–337). Oxford: Blackwell.

Cooke, M., King, S., Garnier, M., & Aubanel, V. (2013). The listening talker:
A review of human and algorithmic context‐induced modifications of speech.
Computer Speech and Language, 28(2), 543–571.

Creel, S. C., & Bregman, M. R. (2011). How talker identity relates to language
processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(5), 190–204.

Cristia, A. (2013). Input to language: The phonetics and perception of
infant‐directed speech. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(3), 157–170.

Crystal, D. (Ed.). (1980). A first dictionary of linguistics and phonetics.
London: Andre Deutsch.

Cutting, J. C., & Bock, K. (1997). That’s the way the cookie bounces:
Syntactic and semantic components of experimentally elicited idiom blends.
Memory & Cognition, 25(1), 57–71.

Dupoux, E., Parlato, E., Frota, S., et al. (2011). Where do illusory vowels
come from? Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 199–210.

Flege, J. E., Yeni‐Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on
second‐language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(1), 78–104.

Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hafter, E. R. (2010). Is there a hearing aid for the thinking person? Journal
of the American Academy of Audiology, 21(9), 594–600.

Hermans, H. J. M. (1996). Voicing the self: From information processing to
dialogical interchange. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 31–50.

Hunter, C. R. (2013). Early effects of neighborhood density and phonotactic
probability of spoken words on event‐related potentials. Brain and Language,
127, 462–474.

Johnson, E. K., Lahey, M., Ernestus, M., & Cutler, A. (2013). A multimodal
corpus of speech to infant and adult listeners. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 134(6), EL534–540.

Johnson, K. (1997). Speech perception without speaker normalization: An
exemplar model. In K. Johnson & J. W. Mullennix (Eds.), Talker variability in
speech processing (pp. 145–166). San Diego: Academic Press.

Lass, N. J., Hughes, K. R., Bowyer, M. D., et al. (1976). Speaker sex
identification from voiced, whispered, and filtered isolated vowels. Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America, 59, 675–678.

Majerus, S., Collette, F., Van der Linden, M., et al. (2002). A PET
investigation of lexicality and phonotactic frequency in oral language
processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 19, 343–361.

Martin, R. N., & Clark, J. G. (2015). Introduction to audiology (12th Ed.).
Boston: Pearson.

McCullough, E. A., Clopper, C. G., & Wagner, L. (2019). Regional dialect
perception across the lifespan: Identification and discrimination. Language
and Speech, 62(1), 115–136.

McKenna, V. S., & Stepp, C. E. (2018). The relationship between acoustical and
perceptual measures of vocal effort. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 144(3), 1643–1658.

Meyer, A. S., Huettig, F., & Levelt, W. J. (2016). Same, different, or closely
related: What is the relationship between language production and
comprehension? Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 1–7.

Mirman, D. (2016). Zones of proximal development for models of spoken word
recognition. In G. Gaskell & J. Mirković (Eds.), Speech perception and spoken
word recognition (pp. 97–115). London: Psychology Press.

Mitterer, H., Scharenborg, O., & McQueen, J. M. (2013). Phonological
abstraction without phonemes in speech perception. Cognition, 129, 356–361.

Parker, H. G., Dreger, D. L., Rimbault, M., et al. (2017). Genomic analyses
reveal the influence of geographic origin, migration, and hybridization on
modern dog breed development. Cell Reports, 19, 697–708.

Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory:
Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. Schmidt
(Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). New York: Longman.

Pichora‐Fuller, M. K., Goy, H., & van Lieshout, P. (2010). Effect on speech
intelligibility of changes in speech production influenced by instructions and
communication environments. Seminars in Hearing, 31, 77–94.

Pisoni, D. B. (1997). Some thoughts on “normalization” in speech perception.
In K. Johnson & J. W. Mullennix (Eds.), Talker variability in speech
processing (pp. 9–32). San Diego: Academic Press.

Price, C. J., Hope, T. M., & Seghier, M. L. (2017). Ten problems and solutions
when predicting individual outcome from lesion site after stroke. NeuroImage,
145(pt B), 200–208.

Pugh, K., & McCardle, P. (Eds.). (2009). How children learn to read: Current
issues and new directions in the integration of cognition, neurobiology and
genetics of reading and dyslexia research and Practice. New York: Psychology
Press.

Pylkkänen, L., Stringfellow, A., & Marantz, A. (2002). Neuromagnetic evidence
for the timing of lexical activation: An MEG component sensitive to
phonotactic probability but not to neighbourhood density. Brain and Language,
81, 666–678.

Remez, R. E. (2005). Perceptual organization of speech. In D. B. Pisoni & R.
E. Remez (Eds), The handbook of speech perception (pp. 28–50). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.

Rosenblum, L. D. (2013). A confederacy of senses. Scientific American, 308,
72–75.

Rosenblum, L. D., Dorsi, J., & Dias, J. W. (2016). The impact and status of
Carol Fowler’s supramodal theory of multisensory speech perception. Ecological
Psychology, 28, 262–294.

Shockey, L., & Bond, Z. S. (2014). What slips of the ear reveal about speech
perception. Linguistica Lettica, 22, 107–113.

Shockey, L., & Bond. Z. S. (2007). Slips of the ear demonstrate phonology in
action. In Proceedings of the XVI Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 33–34).
Saarbrucken: Saarland University Conference Unit.

Sommers, M. S., & Phelps, D. (2016). Listening effort in younger and older
adults: A comparison of auditory‐only and auditory‐visual presentations. Ear
and Hearing, 37(Suppl. 1), 62S–68S.

Sommers, M. S., Tye‐Murray, N., & Spehar, B. (2005). Auditory‐visual speech
perception and auditory‐visual enhancement in normal‐hearing younger and older
adults. Ear and Hearing, 26(3), 263–275.

Stevens, K. N. (2002). Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic
landmarks and distinctive features. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 111, 1872–1891.

Thomas, E. R. (2011). Sociophonetics: An introduction. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Tye‐Murray, N., Sommers, M., Spehar, B., et al. (2010). Aging, audiovisual
integration, and the principle of inverse effectiveness. Ear and Hearing,
31(5), 636–644.

Tye‐Murray, N., Spehar, B., Myerson, J., Hale, S., & Sommers, M. (2016).
Lipreading and audiovisual speech recognition across the adult life‐span:
Implications for audiovisual integration. Psychology and Aging, 31(4),
380–389.

Van Hirtum, T., Moncada‐Torres, A., Ghesquière, P., & Wouters, J. (2019).
Speech envelope enhancement instantaneously effaces atypical speech perception
in dyslexia. Ear and Hearing, 40(5), 1242–1252.

Vanvooren, S., Poelmans, H., De Vos, A., et al. (2017). Do prereaders’
auditory processing and speech perception predict later literacy? Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 70, 138–151.

Vitevitch, M. S. (2019). Network science in cognitive psychology. New York:
Taylor & Francis.

Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (2016). Phonological neighborhood effects in
spoken word perception and production. Annual Review of Linguistics, 2, 75–94.

Voegtline, K. M., Costigan, K. A., Pater, H., & DiPietro, J. A. (2013).
Near‐term fetal response to maternal spoken voice. Infant Behavior &
Development, 36, 526–533.

Wilson, B. S., & Dorman, M. F. (2008). Cochlear implants: A remarkable past
and a brilliant future. Hearing Research, 242(1), 3–21.

Wilson, B. S., Dorman, M. F., Woldorff, M. G., & Tucci, D. L. (2011). Cochlear
implants: Matching the prosthesis to the brain and facilitating desired
plastic changes in brain function. Progress in Brain Research, 194, 117–129.

Wood, D. (2006). Uses and functions of formulaic sequences in second language
speech: An exploration of the foundations of fluency. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 63(1), 13–33.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Sviatlana Karpava is a lecturer in Applied Linguistics in the Department of
English Studies at the University of Cyprus. Her main research interests are
applied linguistics, first and second language acquisition, bilingualism,
multilingualism, sociolinguistics, teaching, and education.
https://www.ucy.ac.cy/dir/en/cb-profile/skarpa01





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2020 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
                   https://crowdfunding.iu.edu/the-linguist-list

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-32-3611	
----------------------------------------------------------