Displaying 1 - 9 of 9
-
Alispahic, S., Pellicano, E., Cutler, A., & Antoniou, M. (2024). Multiple talker processing in autistic adult listeners. Scientific Reports, 14: 14698. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-62429-w.
Abstract
Accommodating talker variability is a complex and multi-layered cognitive process. It involves shifting attention to the vocal characteristics of the talker as well as the linguistic content of their speech. Due to an interdependence between voice and phonological processing, multi-talker
environments typically incur additional processing costs compared to single-talker environments. A failure or inability to efficiently distribute attention over multiple acoustic cues in the speech signal
may have detrimental language learning consequences. Yet, no studies have examined effects of multi-talker processing in populations with atypical perceptual, social and language processing for communication, including autistic people. Employing a classic word-monitoring task, we investigated
effects of talker variability in Australian English autistic (n = 24) and non-autistic (n = 28) adults.
Listeners responded to target words (e.g., apple, duck, corn) in randomised sequences of words. Half of the sequences were spoken by a single talker and the other half by multiple talkers. Results revealed that autistic participants’ sensitivity scores to accurately-spotted target words did not differ to those
of non-autistic participants, regardless of whether they were spoken by a single or multiple talkers. As expected, the non-autistic group showed the well-established processing cost associated with talker
variability (e.g., slower response times). Remarkably, autistic listeners’ response times did not differ across single- or multi-talker conditions, indicating they did not show perceptual processing costs
when accommodating talker variability. The present findings have implications for theories of autistic perception and speech and language processing. -
Bruggeman, L., & Cutler, A. (2023). Listening like a native: Unprofitable procedures need to be discarded. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 26(5), 1093-1102. doi:10.1017/S1366728923000305.
Abstract
Two languages, historically related, both have lexical stress, with word stress distinctions signalled in each by the same suprasegmental cues. In each language, words can overlap segmentally but differ in placement of primary versus secondary stress (OCtopus, ocTOber). However, secondary stress occurs more often in the words of one language, Dutch, than in the other, English, and largely because of this, Dutch listeners find it helpful to use suprasegmental stress cues when recognising spoken words. English listeners, in contrast, do not; indeed, Dutch listeners can outdo English listeners in correctly identifying the source words of English word fragments (oc-). Here we show that Dutch-native listeners who reside in an English-speaking environment and have become dominant in English, though still maintaining their use of these stress cues in their L1, ignore the same cues in their L2 English, performing as poorly in the fragment identification task as the L1 English do. -
Söderström, P., & Cutler, A. (2023). Early neuro-electric indication of lexical match in English spoken-word recognition. PLOS ONE, 18(5): e0285286. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0285286.
Abstract
We investigated early electrophysiological responses to spoken English words embedded in neutral sentence frames, using a lexical decision paradigm. As words unfold in time, similar-sounding lexical items compete for recognition within 200 milliseconds after word onset. A small number of studies have previously investigated event-related potentials in this time window in English and French, with results differing in direction of effects as well as component scalp distribution. Investigations of spoken-word recognition in Swedish have reported an early left-frontally distributed event-related potential that increases in amplitude as a function of the probability of a successful lexical match as the word unfolds. Results from the present study indicate that the same process may occur in English: we propose that increased certainty of a ‘word’ response in a lexical decision task is reflected in the amplitude of an early left-anterior brain potential beginning around 150 milliseconds after word onset. This in turn is proposed to be connected to the probabilistically driven activation of possible upcoming word forms.Additional information
The datasets are available here -
Cutler, A. (1985). Cross-language psycholinguistics. Linguistics, 23, 659-667.
-
Cutler, A., & Pearson, M. (1985). On the analysis of prosodic turn-taking cues. In C. Johns-Lewis (
Ed. ), Intonation in discourse (pp. 139-155). London: Croom Helm. -
Cutler, A. (1985). Performance measures of lexical complexity. In G. Hoppenbrouwers, P. A. Seuren, & A. Weijters (
Eds. ), Meaning and the lexicon (pp. 75). Dordrecht: Foris. -
Cutler, A., Hawkins, J. A., & Gilligan, G. (1985). The suffixing preference: A processing explanation. Linguistics, 23, 723-758.
-
Frauenfelder, U. H., & Cutler, A. (1985). Preface. Linguistics, 23(5). doi:10.1515/ling.1985.23.5.657.
-
Norris, D., & Cutler, A. (1985). Juncture detection. Linguistics, 23, 689-705.
Share this page