Displaying 1 - 20 of 20
-
Brascamp, J., Klink, P., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2015). The ‘laws’ of binocular rivalry: 50 years of Levelt’s propositions. Vision Research, 109, 20-37. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2015.02.019.
Abstract
It has been fifty years since Levelt’s monograph On Binocular Rivalry (1965) was published, but its four propositions that describe the relation between stimulus strength and the phenomenology of binocular rivalry remain a benchmark for theorists and experimentalists even today. In this review, we will revisit the original conception of the four propositions and the scientific landscape in which this happened. We will also provide a brief update concerning distributions of dominance durations, another aspect of Levelt’s monograph that has maintained a prominent presence in the field. In a critical evaluation of Levelt’s propositions against current knowledge of binocular rivalry we will then demonstrate that the original propositions are not completely compatible with what is known today, but that they can, in a straightforward way, be modified to encapsulate the progress that has been made over the past fifty years. The resulting modified, propositions are shown to apply to a broad range of bistable perceptual phenomena, not just binocular rivalry, and they allow important inferences about the underlying neural systems. We argue that these inferences reflect canonical neural properties that play a role in visual perception in general, and we discuss ways in which future research can build on the work reviewed here to attain a better understanding of these properties -
Levelt, W. J. M. (2015). Levensbericht George Armitage Miller 1920 - 2012. In KNAW levensberichten en herdenkingen 2014 (pp. 38-42). Amsterdam: KNAW.
-
Levelt, W. J. M. (2015). Sleeping Beauties. In I. Toivonen, P. Csúrii, & E. Van der Zee (
Eds. ), Structures in the Mind: Essays on Language, Music, and Cognition in Honor of Ray Jackendoff (pp. 235-255). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. -
Indefrey, P., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). The neural correlates of language production. In M. S. Gazzaniga (
Ed. ), The new cognitive neurosciences; 2nd ed. (pp. 845-865). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Abstract
This chapter reviews the findings of 58 word production experiments using different tasks and neuroimaging techniques. The reported cerebral activation sites are coded in a common anatomic reference system. Based on a functional model of language production, the different word production tasks are analyzed in terms of their processing components. This approach allows a distinction between the core process of word production and preceding task-specific processes (lead-in processes) such as visual or auditory stimulus recognition. The core process of word production is subserved by a left-lateralized perisylvian/thalamic language production network. Within this network there seems to be functional specialization for the processing stages of word production. In addition, this chapter includes a discussion of the available evidence on syntactic production, self-monitoring, and the time course of word production. -
Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). Uit talloos veel miljoenen. Natuur & Techniek, 68(11), 90.
-
Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). Dyslexie. Natuur & Techniek, 68(4), 64.
-
Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). Met twee woorden spreken [Simon Dik Lezing 2000]. Amsterdam: Vossiuspers AUP.
-
Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). Links en rechts: Waarom hebben we zo vaak problemen met die woorden? Natuur & Techniek, 68(7/8), 90.
-
Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). Introduction Section VII: Language. In M. S. Gazzaniga (
Ed. ), The new cognitive neurosciences; 2nd ed. (pp. 843-844). Cambridge: MIT Press. -
Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). Psychology of language. In K. Pawlik, & M. R. Rosenzweig (
Eds. ), International handbook of psychology (pp. 151-167). London: SAGE publications. -
Levelt, C. C., Schiller, N. O., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). The acquisition of syllable types. Language Acquisition, 8(3), 237-263. doi:10.1207/S15327817LA0803_2.
Abstract
In this article, we present an account of developmental data regarding the acquisition of syllable types. The data come from a longitudinal corpus of phonetically transcribed speech of 12 children acquiring Dutch as their first language. A developmental order of acquisition of syllable types was deduced by aligning the syllabified data on a Guttman scale. This order could be analyzed as following from an initial ranking and subsequent rerankings in the grammar of the structural constraints ONSET, NO-CODA, *COMPLEX-O, and *COMPLEX-C; some local conjunctions of these constraints; and a faithfulness constraint FAITH. The syllable type frequencies in the speech surrounding the language learner are also considered. An interesting correlation is found between the frequencies and the order of development of the different syllable types. -
Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). The brain does not serve linguistic theory so easily [Commentary to target article by Grodzinksy]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(1), 40-41.
-
Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). Speech production. In A. E. Kazdin (
Ed. ), Encyclopedia of psychology (pp. 432-433). Oxford University Press. -
Levelt, W. J. M., & Indefrey, P. (2000). The speaking mind/brain: Where do spoken words come from? In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O'Neil (
Eds. ), Image, language, brain: Papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium (pp. 77-94). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. -
Levelt, W. J. M., & Meyer, A. S. (2000). Word for word: Multiple lexical access in speech production. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12(4), 433-452. doi:10.1080/095414400750050178.
Abstract
It is quite normal for us to produce one or two million word tokens every year. Speaking is a dear occupation and producing words is at the core of it. Still, producing even a single word is a highly complex affair. Recently, Levelt, Roelofs, and Meyer (1999) reviewed their theory of lexical access in speech production, which dissects the word-producing mechanism as a staged application of various dedicated operations. The present paper begins by presenting a bird eye's view of this mechanism. We then square the complexity by asking how speakers control multiple access in generating simple utterances such as a table and a chair. In particular, we address two issues. The first one concerns dependency: Do temporally contiguous access procedures interact in any way, or do they run in modular fashion? The second issue concerns temporal alignment: How much temporal overlap of processing does the system tolerate in accessing multiple content words, such as table and chair? Results from picture-word interference and eye tracking experiments provide evidence for restricted cases of dependency as well as for constraints on the temporal alignment of access procedures. -
Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). Merging speech perception and production [Comment on Norris, McQueen and Cutler]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(3), 339-340. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00373241.
Abstract
A comparison of Merge, a model of comprehension, and WEAVER, a model of production, raises five issues: (1) merging models of comprehension and production necessarily creates feedback; (2) neither model is a comprehensive account of word processing; (3) the models are incomplete in different ways; (4) the models differ in their handling of competition; (5) as opposed to WEAVER, Merge is a model of metalinguistic behavior. -
Levelt, W. J. M. (1991). Die konnektionistische Mode. Sprache und Kognition, 10(2), 61-72.
-
Levelt, W. J. M. (1991). Lexical access in speech production: Stages versus cascading. In H. Peters, W. Hulstijn, & C. Starkweather (
Eds. ), Speech motor control and stuttering (pp. 3-10). Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica. -
Levelt, W. J. M., Schriefers, H., Vorberg, D., Meyer, A. S., Pechmann, T., & Havinga, J. (1991). Normal and deviant lexical processing: Reply to Dell and O'Seaghdha. Psychological Review, 98(4), 615-618. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.4.615.
Abstract
In their comment, Dell and O'Seaghdha (1991) adduced any effect on phonological probes for semantic alternatives to the activation of these probes in the lexical network. We argue that that interpretation is false and, in addition, that the model still cannot account for our data. Furthermore, and different from Dell and O'seaghda, we adduce semantic rebound to the lemma level, where it is so substantial that it should have shown up in our data. Finally, we question the function of feedback in a lexical network (other than eliciting speech errors) and discuss Dell's (1988) notion of a unified production-comprehension system. -
Levelt, W. J. M., Schriefer, H., Vorberg, D., Meyer, A. S., Pechmann, T., & Havinga, J. (1991). The time course of lexical access in speech production: A study of picture naming. Psychological Review, 98(1), 122-142. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.1.122.
Share this page