The Role of the Root in Spoken Word Recognition in Hebrew: An Auditory Gating Paradigm
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Stimuli
2.1.1. Lexical Stimuli
2.1.2. Morphological Stimuli
2.2. Gating Paradigms
2.3. Participants and Procedure
2.4. Analysis
2.4.1. Preprocessing
2.4.2. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Gating by Time: Lexical
3.1.1. Isolation Points
3.1.2. Difference Isolation Point to Uniqueness Point
3.2. Gating by Time: Morphological
Difference—Isolation and Uniqueness Points
3.3. Gating by Phoneme: Lexical
3.3.1. Isolation Points
3.3.2. Difference—Isolation and Uniqueness Points
3.4. Gating by Phoneme: Morphological
Difference—Isolation and Uniqueness Points
3.5. Recognition Point Results Summary
4. Discussion and Conclusions
4.1. Lexical Results
4.2. Morphological Results
4.3. Paradigms
4.4. Differences between RP and IP Results
4.5. Future Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Stimuli Used in the Experiments
Lexical Stimuli | ||
HF-HND | ||
Word | Root | Transliteration |
שחק | שׁחק | SaHak |
שוטר | שׁטר | Soter |
שיפור | שׁפר | Sipur |
כרם | כרם | kerem |
קשת | קשׁת | keSet |
חורש | חרשׁ | HoreS |
חוקר | חקר | Hoker |
פרט | פרט | peret |
בשר | בשׂר | basar |
סימון | סמן | simun |
HF-LND | ||
Word | Root | Transliteration |
חומרה | חמר | Humra |
צמד | צמד | Temed |
בדיחה | בדח | bdiHa |
גפן | גפן | gefen |
גרסה | גרס | girsa |
רוטב | רטב | rotev |
נוהג | נהג | nohag |
תומך | תמך | tomeK |
נציג | נצג | naTig |
מקל | מקל | makel |
LF-LND | ||
Word | Root | Transliteration |
כחל | כחל | kaHal |
מחט | מחט | maHat |
קיטור | קטר | kitur |
שחף | שׁחף | SaHaf |
רתך | רתך | rataK |
רחף | רחף | raHaf |
חוטר | חטר | Hoter |
שכירה | שׂכר | sKira |
שחת | שׁחת | SaHat |
גלף | גלף | galaf |
LF-LND | ||
כפיס | כפס | kafis |
מיסוך | מסך | misuK |
גיהוץ | גהץ | gihuT |
נחיל | נחל | neHil |
נקז | נקז | nekez |
נבג | נבג | neveg |
ריגוש | רגשׁ | riguS |
רומח | רמח | romaH |
תותח | תתח | totaH |
סיבוך | סבך | sibuK |
Morphological Stimuli | ||
RC < UP | ||
Word | Root | Transliteration |
גמלאי | גמל | gimlay |
כורסה | כרס | kursa |
קדמות | קדם | kadmut |
קרנית | קרן | karnit |
למדן | למד | lamdan |
לכידה | לכד | leKida |
שמלה | שׂמל | simla |
ספרנות | ספר | safranut |
חומצה | חמץ | HumTa |
חרצית | חרץ | HarTit |
RC = UP | ||
Word | Root | Transliteration |
גלשן | גלשׁ | galSan |
גיבוש | גבשׁ | gibuS |
קרחון | קרח | karHon |
כובש | כבשׁ | koveS |
לפתן | לפת | liftan |
לחישה | לחשׁ | leHiSa |
סיפון | ספן | sipun |
ספלון | ספל | siflon |
חיריק | חרק | Hirik |
חרוסת | חרס | Haroset |
UP < RC | ||
Word | Root | Transliteration |
גרדת | גרד | garedet |
גוזל | גזל | gozal |
כלבת | כלב | kalevet |
כינור | כנר | kinor |
לקט | לקט | leket |
לבונה | לבן | levona |
סבילות | סבל | svilut |
סדיקה | סדק | sdika |
חיגר | חגר | Higer |
חכירה | חכר | HaKira |
References
- Taft, M. Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. Sect. A 2004, 57, 745–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Longtin, C.M.; Meunier, F. Morphological decomposition in early visual word processing. J. Mem. Lang. 2005, 53, 26–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leminen, A.; Leminen, M.; Kujala, T.; Shtyrov, Y. Neural dynamics of inflectional and derivational morphology processing in the human brain. Cortex 2013, 49, 2758–2771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiorentino, R.; Naito-Billen, Y.; Minai, U. Morphological decomposition in Japanese deadjectival nominals: Masked and overt priming evidence. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 2016, 45, 575–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frost, R.; Deutsch, A.; Gilboa, O.; Tannenbaum, M.; Marslen-Wilson, W. Morphological priming: Dissociation of phonological, semantic, and morphological factors. Mem. Cogn. 2000, 28, 1277–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boudelaa, S.; Marslen-Wilson, W.D. Discontinuous morphology in time: Incremental masked priming in Arabic. Lang. Cogn. Process. 2005, 20, 207–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Velan, H.; Frost, R. Letter-transposition effects are not universal: The impact of transposing letters in Hebrew. J. Mem. Lang. 2009, 61, 285–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Perea, M.; Abu Mallouh, R.; Carreiras, M. The search for an input-coding scheme: Transposed-letter priming in Arabic. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2010, 17, 375–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yablonski, M.; Ben-Shachar, M. The morpheme interference effect in hebrew: A generalization across the verbal and nominal domains. Ment. Lex. 2016, 11, 277–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geary, J.; Ussishkin, A. Morphological priming without semantic relationship in Hebrew spoken word recognition. Proc. Linguist. Soc. Am. 2019, 4, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schriefers, H.; Zwitserlood, P.; Roelofs, A. The identification of morphologically complex spoken words: Continuous processing or decomposition? J. Mem. Lang. 1991, 30, 26–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balling, L.; Baayen, R.H. Morphological effects in auditory word recognition: Evidence from Danish. Lang. Cogn. Process. 2008, 23, 1159–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frost, R.; Forster, K.I.; Deutsch, A. What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew? A masked-priming investigation of morphological representation. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 1997, 23, 829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oganyan, M.; Wright, R.; Herschensohn, J. The role of the root in auditory word recognition of Hebrew. Cortex 2019, 116, 286–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McClelland, J.L.; Elman, J.L. The TRACE model of speech perception. Cogn. Psychol. 1986, 18, 1–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marslen-Wilson, W.D.; Welsh, A. Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cogn. Psychol. 1978, 10, 29–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tyler, L.K. The structure of the initial cohort: Evidence from gating. Percept. Psychophys. 1984, 36, 417–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vitevitch, M.S.; Mullin, G.J. What Do Cognitive Networks Do? Simulations of Spoken Word Recognition Using the Cognitive Network Science Approach. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grosjean, F. Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm. Percept. Psychophys. 1980, 28, 267–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Metsala, J.L. An examination of word frequency and neighborhood density in the development of spoken-word recognition. Mem. Cogn. 1997, 25, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frost, R.; Plaut, D. The Word-Frequency Database for Printed Hebrew. 2005. Available online: http://word-freq.huji.ac.il/index.html (accessed on 1 June 2020).
- Charles-Luce, J.; Luce, P.A. Similarity neighbourhoods of words in young children’s lexicons. J. Child Lang. 1990, 17, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Itai, A.; Wintner, S. Language Resources for Hebrew. Lang. Resour. Eval. 2008, 42, 75–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peirce, J.; Gray, J.R.; Simpson, S.; MacAskill, M.; Höchenberger, R.; Sogo, H.; Lindeløv, J.K. PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behav. Res. Methods 2019, 51, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sánchez-García, C.; Kandel, S.; Savariaux, C.; Soto-Faraco, S. The time course of audio-visual phoneme identification: A high temporal resolution study. Multisens. Res. 2018, 31, 57–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vitevitch, M.S. The spread of the phonological neighborhood influences spoken word recognition. Mem. Cogn. 2007, 35, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Vitevitch, M.S.; Rodríguez, E. Neighborhood density effects in spoken word recognition in Spanish. J. Multiling. Commun. Disord. 2005, 3, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Luce, P.A.; Pisoni, D.B. Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear Hear. 1998, 19, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Farhy, Y.; Veríssimo, J.; Clahsen, H. Universal and particular in morphological processing: Evidence from Hebrew. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 2018, 71, 1125–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Boudelaa, S.; Marslen-Wilson, W.D. Productivity and priming: Morphemic decomposition in Arabic. Lang. Cogn. Process. 2011, 26, 624–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Concatenative (Swahili) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Prefix | Root | Suffix | Word | Meaning | |
verb | ku- (inf.) | -pend- | -a (verb) | kupenda | to love |
noun | u- (nom.) | -pend- | -o (nom) | upendo | love (n.) |
Templatic (Hebrew) | |||||
Root | Template | Word | Meaning | ||
verb | /x/-/k/-/ʁ/ | _a_a_ (verbal) | /xakaʁ/ | investigated (v. m. past) | |
noun | /x/-/k/-/ʁ/ | mi_ _a_ (nominal) | /mixkaʁ/ | research (n.) |
Phones | Freq | ND | Initial Sound Manner | |
---|---|---|---|---|
HF-HND | 5 | 34 (16–64) | 14.7 (12–16) | Fricative (6), Stop (4) |
HF-LND | 5 | 30.2 (16–52) | 1.8 (0–3) | Fricative (3), Nasal (3), Stop (4) |
LF-LND | 5 | 1.9 (1–4) | 15.1 (12–23) | Fricative (6), Nasal (1), Stop (3) |
LF-HND | 5 | 1.7 (1–3) | 1.8 (1–2) | Fricative (3), Nasal (4), Stop (3) |
Phones | Freq | ND | Initial Sound Manner | |
---|---|---|---|---|
RCP < UP | 5.9 (5–8) | 2.6 (1–7) | 3.3 (0–8) | Fricative (4), Stop (4), Liquid (2) |
RCP = UP | 5.7 (5–7) | 2.8 (1–7) | 3.3 (0–10) | Fricative (4), Stop (4), Liquid (2) |
UP < RCP | 5.7 (5–7) | 2.9 (1–7) | 3.3 (0–7) | Fricative (4), Stop (4), Liquid (2) |
By Time | By Phoneme | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Lex. | Morph. | Lex. | Morph. | |
Participants —Invalid ID | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 |
Participants —Language | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
Entries —No Valid Guesses | 35 | 33 | 29 | 30 |
Stimuli | LF HND-רתך,שכירה LF LND-נחיל HF LND-בדיחה | n/a | LF HND-רתך,שכירה LF LND-נחיל HF LND-בדיחה |
Gating by Time | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 × 2 Freq | 2 × 2 ND | 2 × 2 Freq:ND | Freq | ND in HFreq | ND in LFreq | |
IP | * | * | NS | H < L * | NS | L < H * |
IP-UP | * | NS | NS | H < L * | NS | L < H * |
Gating by Phoneme | ||||||
2 × 2 Freq | 2 × 2 ND | 2 × 2 Freq:ND | Freq | ND in HFreq | ND in LFreq | |
IP | * | * | NS | H < L * | NS | L < H * |
IP-UP | * | NS | * | H < L * | NS | L < H * |
Overall | Diff from RCP = UP | RCP < UP vs. UP < RC | |
---|---|---|---|
Gating by Time | * | * RCP < UP faster | * RCP < UP faster |
Gating by Phoneme | * | * UP < RCP slower | * UP < RCP faster |
Gating by Time | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
HF-HND | HF-LND | LF-HND | LF-LND | ||
RP | 398 ms | 368 ms | 454 ms | 439 ms | |
RP-UP | −107 ms | −113 ms | −3 ms | −52 ms | |
Statistics | |||||
LMER 2 × 2 | Freq | ND | ND in HFreq | ND in LFreq | |
RP | * Freqt = 5.642, p < 0.001 * ND t = −3.318, p < 0.001 Freq:ND t = 1.149, p < 0.25 | * H 62 ms < L t = 9.055, p < 0.001 | * L 18 ms < H t = −2.577, p < 0.05 | * L 30 ms < H t = −3.155, p < 0.01 | L 15 ms < H t = −1.473, p < 0.141 |
RP-UP | * Freq t = 10.035, p < 0.001 ND t = −0.667, p < 0.505 * Freq:ND t = −2.918, p < 0.01 | * H 80 ms < L t = 11.12, p < 0.001 | * L 18 ms < H t = −2.471, p < 0.01 | t = −581, p < 0.6 | * L 48 ms < H t = −4.87, p < 0.001 |
Gating By Phoneme | |||||
HF-HND | HF-LND | LF-HND | LF-LND | ||
RP | 4.074 | 3.852 | 4.49 | 4.302 | |
ID-UP | −0.926/gate | −0.931/gate | −0.504/gate | −0.698/gate | |
Statistics | |||||
LMER 2 × 2 | Freq | ND | ND in HFreq | ND in LFreq | |
RP | * Freq t = 5.658, p < 0.001 * ND t = −3.179, p < 0.01 Freq:ND t = 0.270, p = 0.787 | * H 0.424 < L t = 8.153, p < 0.001 | * L 0.184 < H t = −3.474, p < 0.001 | * L 0.222 < H t = 3.091, p < 0.01 | * L 0.194 < H t = −2.625, p < 0.01 |
RP-UP | * Freq t = 5.509, p < 0.001 ND t = −0.070, p = 0.95 Freq:ND t = −1.775, p = 0.076 | * H 0.319 < L t = 5.94, p < 0.001 | t = −0.072, p < 0.2 | t = −0.005, p < 0.95 | * L 0.194 < H t = −2.625, p < 0.01 |
Gating by Time | |||
---|---|---|---|
RCP < UP | RCP = UP | UP < RCP | |
−57 ms | −35 ms | 67 ms | |
Statistics | |||
Overall | RC < UP | UP < RC | |
* F = 94.29, p < 0.001 | RC = UP | * RC < UP 23 ms before t = −2.36, p < 0.05 | * UP < RC 102 ms after t = 10.49, p < 0.001 |
UP < RC | * RC < UP 124 ms before t = 12.149, p < 0.001 | ||
Gating By Phoneme | |||
Summary | |||
RCP < UP | RCP = UP | UP < RCP | |
0.931 | 0.267 | −0.469 | |
Statistics | |||
Overall | RC < UP | UP < RC | |
* F = 178.06, p < 0.001 | RC = UP | * RC < UP 0.663/gate before t= −8.939, p < 0.001 | * UP < RC 0.736/gate after t = 9.866, p < 0.001 |
UP < RC | * RC < UP 1.40/gate before t = 18.03, p < 0.001 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Oganyan, M.; Wright, R.A. The Role of the Root in Spoken Word Recognition in Hebrew: An Auditory Gating Paradigm. Brain Sci. 2022, 12, 750. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12060750
Oganyan M, Wright RA. The Role of the Root in Spoken Word Recognition in Hebrew: An Auditory Gating Paradigm. Brain Sciences. 2022; 12(6):750. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12060750
Chicago/Turabian StyleOganyan, Marina, and Richard A. Wright. 2022. "The Role of the Root in Spoken Word Recognition in Hebrew: An Auditory Gating Paradigm" Brain Sciences 12, no. 6: 750. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12060750