Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorStorkel, Holly L.
dc.contributor.authorArmbruster, Jonna
dc.contributor.authorHogan, Tiffany P.
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-08T21:10:29Z
dc.date.available2016-02-08T21:10:29Z
dc.date.issued2006
dc.identifier.citationStorkel, Holly L., Jonna Armbru¨ster, and Tiffany P. Hogan. "Differentiating Phonotactic Probability and Neighborhood Density in Adult Word Learning." J Speech Lang Hear Res Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 49.6 (2006): 1175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/085en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1808/19912
dc.descriptionThis is the author's accepted manuscript. The original is available at http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/article.aspx?articleid=1762869&resultClick=3en_US
dc.description.abstractPurpose

The purpose of this study was to differentiate effects of phonotactic probability, the likelihood of occurrence of a sound sequence, and neighborhood density, the number of words that sound similar to a given word, on adult word learning. A second purpose was to determine what aspect of word learning (viz., triggering learning, formation of an initial representation, or integration with existing representations) was influenced by each variable.

Method

Thirty-two adults were exposed to 16 nonwords paired with novel objects in a story context. The nonwords orthogonally varied in phonotactic probability and neighborhood density. Learning was measured following 1, 4, and 7 exposures in a picture-naming task. Partially correct (i.e., 2 of 3 phonemes correct) and completely correct responses (i.e., 3 of 3 phonemes correct) were analyzed together and independently to examine emerging and partial representations of new words versus complete and accurate representations of new words.

ResultsAnalysis of partially correct and completely correct responses combined showed that adults learned a lower proportion of high-probability nonwords than low-probability nonwords (i.e., high-probability disadvantage) and learned a higher proportion of high-density nonwords than low-density nonwords (i.e., high-density advantage). Separate analysis of partially correct responses yielded an effect of phonotactic probability only, whereas analysis of completely correct responses yielded an effect of neighborhood density only.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that phonological and lexical processing influence different aspects of word learning. In particular, phonotactic probability may aid in triggering new learning, whereas neighborhood density may influence the integration of new lexical representations with existing representations.
en_US
dc.publisherAmerican Speech-Language-Hearing Associationen_US
dc.titleDifferentiating Phonotactic Probability and Neighborhood Density in Adult Word Learningen_US
dc.typeArticle
kusw.kuauthorStorkel, Holly L.
kusw.kudepartmentSpeech-Language-Hearingen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1044/1092-4388(2006/085
kusw.oaversionScholarly/refereed, author accepted manuscript
kusw.oapolicyThis item does not meet KU Open Access policy criteria.
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record