Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Menu
Find a journal Publish with us Track your research
Search
Cart
  1. Home
  2. Behavior Research Methods
  3. Article

jTRACE: A reimplementation and extension of the TRACE model of speech perception and spoken word recognition

  • Published: February 2007
  • Volume 39, pages 19–30, (2007)
  • Cite this article
Download PDF
Behavior Research Methods Aims and scope Submit manuscript
jTRACE: A reimplementation and extension of the TRACE model of speech perception and spoken word recognition
Download PDF
  • Ted J. Strauss1,
  • Harlan D. Harris2 &
  • James S. Magnuson1,3 
  • 1510 Accesses

  • 41 Citations

  • Explore all metrics

Abstract

This article describes jTRACE, a freely available, cross-platform Java reimplementation of the TRACE model of spoken word recognition. The goal of the reimplementation is to facilitate the use of simulations by researchers who may not have the skills or time necessary to use or extend the original C implementation. In this article, we report a large-scale validation project, in which we have replicated a number of important previous simulations, and then we describe several new features in jTRACE designed to help researchers conduct original TRACE research, as well as to replicate earlier findings. These features include visualization tools, powerful scripting, built-in data graphing, adjustable levels of external and internal noise, and adjustable lexical characteristics, such as frequency of occurrence. Functions for saving and reloading entire simulations facilitate archiving, sharing, and replication and also make jTRACE ideal for educational use, since it comes bundled with several important simulations. jTRACE can be downloaded from magnuson.psy.uconn.edu/jtrace.

Article PDF

Download to read the full article text

Similar content being viewed by others

Natural Language Processing

Chapter © 2020

GenAI against humanity: nefarious applications of generative artificial intelligence and large language models

Article Open access 22 February 2024

Emilio Ferrara

Embodied human language models vs. Large Language Models, or why Artificial Intelligence cannot explain the modal be able to

Article 07 February 2024

Sergio Torres-Martínez

Use our pre-submission checklist

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

References

  • Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S., &Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models.Journal of Memory & Language,38, 419–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahan, D., Magnuson, J. S., &Tanenhaus, M. K. (2001). Time course of frequency effects in spoken-word recognition: Evidence from eye movements.Cognitive Psychology,42, 317–367.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dahan, D., Magnuson, J. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., &Hogan, E. M. (2001). Subcategorical mismatches and the time course of lexical access: Evidence for lexical competition.Language & Cognitive Processes,16, 507–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elman, J. L., &McClelland, J. L. (1988). Cognitive penetration of the mechanisms of perception: Compensation for coarticulation of lexically restored phonemes.Journal of Memory & Language,27, 143–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frauenfelder, U. H., & Content, A. (2000). Activation flow in models of spoken word recognition. InProceedings of the Workshop on Spoken Word Access Processes (pp. 79–82). Nijmegen.

  • Frauenfelder, U. H., &Peeters, G. (1998). Simulating the time course of spoken word recognition: An analysis of lexical competition in TRACE. In J. Grainger & A. M. Jacobs (Eds.),Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition (pp. 101–146). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frauenfelder, U. H., Segui, J., &Dijkstra, T. (1990). Lexical effects in phonemic processing: Facilitatory or inhibitory?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,16, 77–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnuson, J. S., Dahan, D., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2001). On the interpretation of computational models: The case of TRACE. In J. S. Magnuson & K. M. Crosswhite (Eds.), University of Rochester Working Papers in the Language Sciences,2, 71-91. Available at www.bcs .rochester.edu/cls/s2001v2n1/magnuson_urwpls_v2n1.pdf.

  • Magnuson, J. S., McMurray, B., Tanenhaus, M. K., &Aslin, R. N. (2003). Lexical effects on compensation for coarticulation: The ghost of Christmash past.Cognitive Science,27, 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnuson, J. S., Strauss, T. J., &Harris, H. D. (2005). Interaction in spoken word recognition models: Feedback helps. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.),Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1379–1384). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-Wilson, W., &Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding.Cognition,8, 1–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-Wilson, W., &Warren, P. (1994). Levels of perceptual representation and process in lexical access: Words, phonemes, and features.Psychological Review,101, 653–675.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Massaro, D. W. (1989). Testing between the TRACE model and the fuzzy logical model of speech perception.Cognitive Psychology,21, 398–421.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, J. L. (1991). Stochastic interactive processes and the effect of context on perception.Cognitive Psychology,23, 1–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, J. L., &Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception.Cognitive Psychology,18, 1–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, J. L., Mirman, D., &Holt, L. L. (2006). Are there interactive processes in speech perception?Trends in Cognitive Sciences,10, 363–369.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, J. L., &Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings.Psychological Review,88, 375–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. L., &Eimas, P. D. (1995). Speech perception: From signal to word.Annual Review of Psychology,46, 467–492.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mirman, D., McClelland, J. L., &Holt, L. L. (2005). Computational and behavioral investigations of lexically induced delays in phoneme recognition.Journal of Memory & Language,53, 424–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Movellan, J. R., &McClelland, J. L. (2001). The Morton-Massaro law of information integration: Implications for models of perception.Psychological Review,108, 113–148.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, D. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition.Cognition,52, 189–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., &Cutler, A. (2000). Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,23, 299–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Protopapas, A. (1999). Connectionist modeling of speech perception.Psychological Bulletin,125, 410–436.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Samuel, A. G., &Pitt, M. A. (2003). Lexical activation (and other factors) can mediate compensation for coarticulation. Journal of Memory & Language,48, 416–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, 406 Babbidge Road, Unit 1020, 06269-1020, Storrs, CT

    Ted J. Strauss & James S. Magnuson

  2. New York University, New York, New York

    Harlan D. Harris

  3. Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, Connecticut

    James S. Magnuson

Authors
  1. Ted J. Strauss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Harlan D. Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James S. Magnuson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James S. Magnuson.

Additional information

Development of jTRACE and preparation of this article were supported by NIH Grants DC005765 to J.S.M. and HD001994 to Haskins Laboratories.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Strauss, T.J., Harris, H.D. & Magnuson, J.S. jTRACE: A reimplementation and extension of the TRACE model of speech perception and spoken word recognition. Behav Res 39, 19–30 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192840

Download citation

  • Received: 19 July 2005

  • Accepted: 04 October 2005

  • Issue Date: February 2007

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192840

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Word Recognition
  • Speech Perception
  • Trace Model
  • Speak Word Recognition
  • Lexical Effect
Use our pre-submission checklist

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Advertisement

Search

Navigation

  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Books A-Z

Publish with us

  • Publish your research
  • Open access publishing

Products and services

  • Our products
  • Librarians
  • Societies
  • Partners and advertisers

Our imprints

  • Springer
  • Nature Portfolio
  • BMC
  • Palgrave Macmillan
  • Apress
  • Your US state privacy rights
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms and conditions
  • Privacy policy
  • Help and support

5.135.140.155

Not affiliated

Springer Nature

© 2024 Springer Nature