Upload
jorden-cortez
View
42
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
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 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
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