Reading & Speech Perception

Reading & Speech Perception

Connectionist Approach

• E.g., Seidenberg and McClelland (1989) and Plaut (1996).

• Central to these models is the absence of any lexicon. Instead, rely on distributed representations

• The model has no stored information about words and ‘… knowledge of words is encoded in the connections in the network.’

ContextGrammar

pragmatics

Semanticsmeaning

Orthographyprint

Phonologyspeech

Phonological pathway

Semantic pathway

Connectionist framework for lexical processing, adapted from Seidenberg and McClelland (1989) and Plaut et al (1996).

Plaut et al. (1996)

Graphemes(input)

Hidden units

Phonemes(output)

/th/ /ih/ /k/

th i ck Orthographyprint

Phonologyspeech

Plaut et al. (1996) Simulations

• Network learned from 3000 written-spoken word pairs by backpropagation. Performance of the network closely resembled that of adult readers

• Predictions:– Irregular slower than regular:

RT( Pint ) > RT( Pond ) – Frequency effect:

RT( Cottage ) > RT( House )– Consistentency effects for nonwords:

RT( MAVE ) > RT( NUST )– Lesions led to decreases in performance on irregular

words, especially low frequency words

Deep Dyslexia: example patient

Semantic Errors

canoe kayakonion orangewindow shadepaper pencilnail fingernailache Alka Seltzer

Visual Errorsfear flagrage race

Nonwords:no responsesubstitution of visually similar word (fank -> bank)

Simulations of Deep Dyslexia

Semanticsmeaning

Orthographyprint

Phonologyspeech

Plaut and Shallice (1993); Hinton, Plaut and Shallice (1993)

Next slide only shows this portion of model

Structure of Model

Grapheme units: one unit for each letter/position pair

Hidden units to allow a non-linear mapping

Sememe units: one per feature of the meaning

Recurrently connected clean-up units: to capture regularities among sememes

Cleanup units: part of a feedback loop that adjusts the sememe output to match the meaning of words precisely

Plaut and Shallice (1993); Hinton, Plaut and Shallice (1993)

Structure of Model• Grapheme units: one

unit for each letter/position pair

• Intermediate units: learning (nonlinear) associations between letters and meaning units

• Sememe (Meaning) units: representation based on semantic features

• Cleanup units: part of a feedback loop that adjusts the sememe output to match the meaning of words precisely

Plaut and Shallice (1993); Hinton, Plaut and Shallice (1993)

What the network learns

• Learning was done with back-propagation

• The network created semantic attractors: each word meaning is a point in semantic space and has its own basin of attraction.

• For a demonstration of attractor networks with visual patterns: http://www.cbu.edu/~pong/ai/hopfield/hopfieldapplet.html

• Damage to the sememe or clean-up units can change the boundaries of the attractors. This explains semantic errors. Meanings fall into a neighboring attractor.

Semantic Space and Effects of Network Damage

• Activations of meaning units can be represented in high-dimensional semantic space

• With network damage, regions of attraction change

• Semantic Errors:

“BED” “COT”

• Visual Errors:

“CAT” “COT”

Plaut and Shallice (1993); Hinton, Plaut and Shallice (1993)

SPEECH PERCEPTION &

CONTEXT EFFECTS

Differences among items that fall into different categories are exaggerated, and differences among items that fall into the same category are minimized.

(from Rob Goldstone, Indiana University)

Categorization

Perceptual Similarity

categorical perception

Some physical continua are perceived continuouslyE.g.:• Color• Pitch• Loudness• Brightness• Angle• Weight• Etc.

Per

cen

t “L

oud”

res

pons

es

Magnitude of Stimulus (e.g. Loudness)

Some are not …

Per

cen

t re

spon

ses

Magnitude of Stimulus

Examples

• from “LAKE” to “RAKE”– http://www.psych.ufl.edu/~white/Cate_per.htm

• from /da/ to /ga/

Good /ga/Good /da/

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Identification: Discontinuity at Boundary

% o

f /g

a/

resp

onse

100%

0%

50%

Token

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Pairwise discrimination

Good /ga/Good /da/

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Discriminate these pairs

Discriminate these pairs

(straddle the category boundary)

Discriminate these pairs

Pairwise Discrimination(same/different)

0102030405060708090

100

1_2 2_3 3_4 4_5 5_6 6_7 7_8

Pair of stimuli

% C

orre

ct D

iscr

imin

atio

n

What Happened?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Physical World

Perceptual Representation

Categorical Perception

• Identification influences discrimination

• This an example of how high level cognitive processes (i.e., categorization) can influence perceptual processes

Lexical Identification Shift

Ganong (1980) J. Exp. Psych: HPP 6, 110-125

• Identification experiment

• VOT continuum• word at one end,

non-word at the other

Bias to interpret sounds as words

nonword-word: dask-taskword-nonword: dash-tash

short VOT (d) long VOT (t)

% /d/

100

0

Phonemic restoration

• If a speech sound is replaced by a noise (a cough or a buzz), then listeners think they have heard the speech sound anyway. Furthermore, they cannot tell exactly where the noise was in the utterance. For instance:

Auditory presentation Perception

Legislature legislatureLegi_lature legi latureLegi*lature legisture

It was found that the *eel was on the axle. wheel

It was found that the *eel was on the shoe. heel

It was found that the *eel was on the orange. peel

It was found that the *eel was on the table. meal

Warren, R. M. (1970). Perceptual restorations of missing speech sounds. Science, 167, 392-393.

Phoneme monitoring (PM)

• Subjects hear words, and have to press a button as soon as they hear a pre-specified target phoneme. Easy form: the target phoneme is always in the same position; Difficult form: the target phoneme can occur anywhere in the words.

• Phoneme monitoring is faster in high frequency words than in low frequency words or in nonwords in the easy form. This suggests that there is top-down influence.

there are two ways in which we identify phonemes, either via top-down information or via bottom-up information.

TRACE model

• Similar to interactive activation model but applied to speech recognition

• Connections between levels are bi-directional and excitatory top-down effects

• Connections within levels are inhibitory producing competition between alternatives

TRACE model

• Phonemes activate word candidates.

• Candidates compete with each other

• Winner completes missing phoneme information

TRACE model• Phonemes are processed one at a time• System activates candidate words that are consistent

with current information• Candidates compete with each other• Winner is selected and competitors are inhibited

Effect of Word Frequency on Eye Fixations

X

bench

bed

bell

lobster

“Pick up the bench”

(Dahan, Magnuson, & Tanenhaus, 2001)

More fixations are directed to high-frequency related distractor than low-frequency distractorPictures of these objects

= bench= bed= bell= lobster