首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >More on Lexical Bias: How Efficient Can a Lexical Editor Be?
【2h】

More on Lexical Bias: How Efficient Can a Lexical Editor Be?

机译:有关词汇偏见的更多信息:词汇编辑的效率如何?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The lexical bias effect (the tendency for phonological speech errors to create words more often than nonwords) has been debated for over 30 years. One account attributes the effect to a lexical editor, a strategic component of the production system that examines each planned phonological string, and suppresses it if it is a nonword. The alternative explanation is that the effect occurs automatically as a result of phonological-lexical feedback. Using a new paradigm, we explicitly asked participants to do lexical editing on their planned speech and compared performance on this inner lexical decision task to results obtained from the standard lexical decision task in three subsequent experiments. Our experimentally created “lexical editor” needed 300 ms to recognize and suppress nonwords, as determined by comparing reaction times when editing was and was not required. Therefore, we concluded that even though strategic lexical editing can be done, any such editing that occurs in daily speech occurs sporadically, if at all.
机译:词汇偏见效应(语音语音错误比非单词更频繁地创造单词的趋势)已经争论了三十多年。一个帐户将效果归因于词法编辑器,后者是生产系统的战略组成部分,该系统检查每个计划的音系,并在其为非单词时将其抑制。另一种解释是,这种效果是语音词汇反馈的自动结果。使用新的范例,我们明确要求参与者对其计划的语音进行词汇编辑,并将此内部词汇决策任务的性能与在随后的三个实验中从标准词汇决策任务获得的结果进行比较。我们通过实验创建的“词法编辑器”需要300毫秒来识别和抑制非单词,这是通过比较是否需要编辑时的反应时间来确定的。因此,我们得出的结论是,即使可以进行战略性的词汇编辑,但日常语音中发生的任何此类编辑(即使有的话)都是偶尔发生的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号