Do competitor acquisition effects generalize

to segmentation tasks?
Nicolas Dumay (n.dumay@kent.ac.uk) and Gareth Gaskell
University of Kent, UK; University of York, UK

Introduction Experiment 1 Experiment 2

For models of human spoken word recognition a
critical feature of lexical representations is their ability
to compete with similar-sounding entities for
identification (cf. McClelland & Elman 1986).
Hence an acid of whether a new word (such as
cathedruke) has been integrated in the mental lexicon
is to assess whether it inhibits recognition of similar
existing words (e.g. cathedral).
Using this approach we found that, in contrast to
mere phonological learning, integration of a new spoken
form in the mental lexicon (indexed by its competitive
engagement) requires an incubation period with an
interval of sleep (Dumay & Gaskell 2007; see also Gaskell & Dumay
Design. Day (3) x Competitor acquisition (exposed or Participants. Another 32 native British English speakers
not)
Materials, design and procedure.
Participants. 32 native British English speakers
Identical to Experiment 1, except that the
Materials. lexicalization test was word spotting (detection of the
embedded word, e.g., muck in lirmuckt) instead of
72 trisyllabic fictitious words embedding an English
pause detection.
word as their second syllable (e.g. lirmucktoze).
Only 36 of these new words were presented during Fillers for the word spotting task were 72 nonwords
exposure, whereas all the items were involved in the with no offset-embedded words (e.g., palgosk).
lexicalization test.
Results
Procedure.
Word spotting
Day 1 Days 2 and 8

2003). Exposure (36x): phoneme Lexicalization test

monitoring on lirmucktoze
These studies used exclusively onset-aligned novel Free recall (3 min)
Lexicalization test: pause
competitors (e.g. cathedruke, shadowks), whereas most detection on lirmuck_t
of the evidence for lexical competition comes from 2-AFC recognition
Free recall (3 min)
segmentation paradigms, i.e., where the words of
p
interest do not start at the same time point ((Cutler & van g
2-AFC recognition test:
Donselaar 2001; McQueen et al. 1994; Norris et al. 1995; Vroomen & de Gelder lirmucktoze or lirmucktove?

1995).

Results
For instance, in a seminal study McQueen et al. (1994)
showed that offset-embedded words (e.g. mess) are Learning a new embedding competitor facilitated
Pause detection
harder to spot in carrier sequences compatible with a performance on Day 1, but (in line with Experiment 1) it
longer competitor (e.g. domess […tic]) than in clearly hindered word detection after 24h and after a
incompatible sequences (e.g. nuhmess). week.

From this angle lexical competition plays a key role in Free recall Recognition
determining the segmentation of the input. So, it
seemed critical to establish whether our artificially
"

"

induced competition effects, so far obtained in tasks

which did not require segmentation, lexical decision and
pause detection, would replicate in a segmentation
!

paradigm: word spotting.

As expected, no effect of exposure immediately, but

Study outline clear inhibition 24h later, and an even larger effect Similar effects as in Experiment 1, except that free
after a week. recall improved (significantly) only between Days 2 and
Participants learnt fictitious words embedding an 8.
existing word as their second syllable (e.g. Free recall Recognition
lirmucktoze), through a single massed exposure session
Conclusions
involving phoneme monitoring.
Overnight lexical consolidation effects generalize to
"

"

Effects of exposure were tested at three time points:

segmentation tasks: pause detection and word spotting
immediately, 24h later and after a week.
show similar patterns of emerging inhibition following
!

Engagement of the novel words in lexical competition acquisition of a new competitor.

was assessed using pause detection (Exp. 1) or word
spotting (Exp. 2); the stimuli were bisyllabic sequences
(e.g. lirmuckt) compatible with the newly acquired
words.
Explicit knowledge was assessed using free recall and
2-alternative forced choice recognition.
Free recall improved across sessions, whereas
recognition improved (presumaby to ceiling level) over
the first 24h, and showed no further change.
More specifically Experiment 2 reproduces artificially
the results obtained with existing words by McQueen et
al. (1994).
This is good news, because it demonstrates that the
spoken forms acquired here behave very much like real
words!