Abstract
Recent use of the gating paradigm (Grosjean, 1980) has shown it to be an effective technique for the study of spoken word-recognition processes. However, because of its “successive” presentation format, questions have been raised regarding the effect of repetition on subjects’ performance in the task. In the present study, a subset of the words used in the original experiment were recorded at several gate durations and in two of the three original context conditions. The words were presented to different groups of subjects who heard them at only one gate duration. Thus, the repetitive aspect of the presentation format was eliminated. The results were compared to those obtained in the original study with respect to the number of subjects guessing the words correctly, the confidence ratings, and the error patterns at each test gate in each context condition. The findings indicate that, apart from a slight increase in confidence ratings in the context condition, the successive presentation format does not appear to influence the subjects’ performance in the gating task.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Reference notes
Marslen- Wilson, W.Sequential processes during spoken word recognition. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, San Antonio, Texas, 1978.
Salasoo, A., &Pisoni, D.Sources of knowledge in spoken word identification (Research on Speech Perception Pr-ogress Report, Vol. 8, pp. 105–145). Bloomington: Department of Psychology, Indiana University, 1982.
References
Erlebacher, A. Design and analysis of experiments contrasting the within- and between-subjects manipulation of the independent variable.Psychological Bulletin, 1977,84, 212–219.
Foss, D. Decision processes during sentence comprehension: Effects of lexical item difficulty and position upon decision times.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969,8, 457–462.
Grosjean, F. Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm.Perception & Psychophysics, 1980,18, 267–283.
Kirk, R.Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, Calif: Brooks/Cole, 1967.
Marslen-Wilson, W. Sentence perception as an interactive parallel process.Science, 1975,189, 226–228.
Marslen-Wilson, W., &Welsh, A. Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech.Cognitive Psychology, 1978,10, 29–63.
Mehler, J., Segui, J., &Carey, P. Tails of words: Monitoring ambiguity.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1978,17, 29–35.
Morton, J., &Long, J. Effect of word transitional probability on phoneme identification.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1976,15, 43–51.
Ohman, S. Perception of segments of VCCV utterances.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1966,40, 979–988.
Pollack, I., &Pickett, J. The intelligibility of excerpts from conversation.Language and Speech, 1963,6, 165–171.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This study was supported in part by grants from the Department of Health and Human Services (RR 07143 and NS 14923).
An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03203902.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cotton, S., Grosjean, F. The gating paradigm: A comparison of successive and individual presentation formats. Perception & Psychophysics 35, 41–48 (1984). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205923
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205923