James McQueen

Publications

Displaying 1 - 7 of 7
  • Hintz, F., Dijkhuis, M., Van 't Hoff, V., Huijsmans, M., Kievit, R. A., McQueen, J. M., & Meyer, A. S. (2025). Evaluating the factor structure of the Dutch Individual Differences in Language Skills (IDLaS-NL) test battery. Brain Research, 1852: 149502. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2025.149502.

    Abstract

    Individual differences in using language are prevalent in our daily lives. Language skills are often assessed in vocational (predominantly written language) and diagnostic contexts. Not much is known, however, about individual differences in spoken language skills. The lack of research is in part due to the lack of suitable test instruments. We introduce the Individual Differences in Language Skills (IDLaS-NL) test battery, a set of 31 behavioural tests that can be used to capture variability in language and relevant general cognitive skills in adult speakers of Dutch. The battery was designed to measure word and sentence production and comprehension skills, linguistic knowledge, nonverbal processing speed, working memory, and nonverbal reasoning. The present article outlines the structure of the battery, describes the materials and procedure of each test, and evaluates the battery’s factor structure based on the results of a sample of 748 Dutch adults, aged between 18 and 30 years, most of them students. The analyses demonstrate that the battery has good construct validity and can be reliably administered both in the lab and via the internet. We therefore recommend the battery as a valuable new tool to assess individual differences in language knowledge and skills; this future work may include linking language skills to other aspects of human cognition and life outcomes.
  • Norris, D., & McQueen, J. M. (2025). Why might there be lexical-prelexical feedback in speech recognition? Cognition, 255: 106025. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2024.106025.

    Abstract

    In reply to Magnuson, Crinnion, Luthra, Gaston, and Grubb (2023), we challenge their conclusion that on-line activation feedback improves word recognition. This type of feedback is instantiated in the TRACE model (McClelland & Elman, 1986) as top-down spread of activation from lexical to phoneme nodes. We give two main reasons why Magnuson et al.'s demonstration that activation feedback speeds up word recognition in TRACE is not informative about whether activation feedback helps humans recognize words. First, the same speed-up could be achieved by changing other parameters in TRACE. Second, more fundamentally, there is room for improvement in TRACE's performance only because the model, unlike Bayesian models, is suboptimal. We also challenge Magnuson et al.'s claim that the available empirical data support activation feedback. The data they base this claim on are open to alternative explanations and there are data against activation feedback that they do not discuss. We argue, therefore, that there are no computational or empirical grounds to conclude that activation feedback benefits human spoken-word recognition and indeed no theoretical grounds why activation feedback would exist. Other types of feedback, for example feedback to support perceptual learning, likely do exist, precisely because they can help listeners recognize words.
  • Clifton, Jr., C., Cutler, A., McQueen, J. M., & Van Ooijen, B. (1999). The processing of inflected forms. [Commentary on H. Clahsen: Lexical entries and rules of language.]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1018-1019.

    Abstract

    Clashen proposes two distinct processing routes, for regularly and irregularly inflected forms, respectively, and thus is apparently making a psychological claim. We argue his position, which embodies a strictly linguistic perspective, does not constitute a psychological processing model.
  • McQueen, J. M., Norris, D., & Cutler, A. (1999). Lexical influence in phonetic decision-making: Evidence from subcategorical mismatches. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1363-1389. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.25.5.1363.

    Abstract

    In 5 experiments, listeners heard words and nonwords, some cross-spliced so that they contained acoustic-phonetic mismatches. Performance was worse on mismatching than on matching items. Words cross-spliced with words and words cross-spliced with nonwords produced parallel results. However, in lexical decision and 1 of 3 phonetic decision experiments, performance on nonwords cross-spliced with words was poorer than on nonwords cross-spliced with nonwords. A gating study confirmed that there were misleading coarticulatory cues in the cross-spliced items; a sixth experiment showed that the earlier results were not due to interitem differences in the strength of these cues. Three models of phonetic decision making (the Race model, the TRACE model, and a postlexical model) did not explain the data. A new bottom-up model is outlined that accounts for the findings in terms of lexical involvement at a dedicated decision-making stage.
  • McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (1997). Cognitive processes in speech perception. In W. J. Hardcastle, & J. D. Laver (Eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences (pp. 556-585). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., Cutler, A., & Butterfield, S. (1997). The possible-word constraint in the segmentation of continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 34, 191-243. doi:10.1006/cogp.1997.0671.

    Abstract

    We propose that word recognition in continuous speech is subject to constraints on what may constitute a viable word of the language. This Possible-Word Constraint (PWC) reduces activation of candidate words if their recognition would imply word status for adjacent input which could not be a word - for instance, a single consonant. In two word-spotting experiments, listeners found it much harder to detectapple,for example, infapple(where [f] alone would be an impossible word), than invuffapple(wherevuffcould be a word of English). We demonstrate that the PWC can readily be implemented in a competition-based model of continuous speech recognition, as a constraint on the process of competition between candidate words; where a stretch of speech between a candidate word and a (known or likely) word boundary is not a possible word, activation of the candidate word is reduced. This implementation accurately simulates both the present results and data from a range of earlier studies of speech segmentation.
  • Suomi, K., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (1997). Vowel harmony and speech segmentation in Finnish. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 422-444. doi:10.1006/jmla.1996.2495.

    Abstract

    Finnish vowel harmony rules require that if the vowel in the first syllable of a word belongs to one of two vowel sets, then all subsequent vowels in that word must belong either to the same set or to a neutral set. A harmony mismatch between two syllables containing vowels from the opposing sets thus signals a likely word boundary. We report five experiments showing that Finnish listeners can exploit this information in an on-line speech segmentation task. Listeners found it easier to detect words likehymyat the end of the nonsense stringpuhymy(where there is a harmony mismatch between the first two syllables) than in the stringpyhymy(where there is no mismatch). There was no such effect, however, when the target words appeared at the beginning of the nonsense string (e.g.,hymypuvshymypy). Stronger harmony effects were found for targets containing front harmony vowels (e.g.,hymy) than for targets containing back harmony vowels (e.g.,paloinkypaloandkupalo). The same pattern of results appeared whether target position within the string was predictable or unpredictable. Harmony mismatch thus appears to provide a useful segmentation cue for the detection of word onsets in Finnish speech.

Share this page