Falk Huettig

Publications

Displaying 1 - 3 of 3
  • Brouwer, S., Mitterer, H., & Huettig, F. (2010). Shadowing reduced speech and alignment. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(1), EL32-EL37. doi:10.1121/1.3448022.

    Abstract

    This study examined whether listeners align to reduced speech. Participants were asked to shadow sentences from a casual speech corpus containing canonical and reduced targets. Participants' productions showed alignment: durations of canonical targets were longer than durations of reduced targets; and participants often imitated the segment types (canonical versus reduced) in both targets. The effect sizes were similar to previous work on alignment. In addition, shadowed productions were overall longer in duration than the original stimuli and this effect was larger for reduced than canonical targets. A possible explanation for this finding is that listeners reconstruct canonical forms from reduced forms.
  • Huettig, F., Chen, J., Bowerman, M., & Majid, A. (2010). Do language-specific categories shape conceptual processing? Mandarin classifier distinctions influence eye gaze behavior, but only during linguistic processing. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 10(1/2), 39-58. doi:10.1163/156853710X497167.

    Abstract

    In two eye-tracking studies we investigated the influence of Mandarin numeral classifiers - a grammatical category in the language - on online overt attention. Mandarin speakers were presented with simple sentences through headphones while their eye-movements to objects presented on a computer screen were monitored. The crucial question is what participants look at while listening to a pre-specified target noun. If classifier categories influence Mandarin speakers' general conceptual processing, then on hearing the target noun they should look at objects that are members of the same classifier category - even when the classifier is not explicitly present (cf. Huettig & Altmann, 2005). The data show that when participants heard a classifier (e.g., ba3, Experiment 1) they shifted overt attention significantly more to classifier-match objects (e.g., chair) than to distractor objects. But when the classifier was not explicitly presented in speech, overt attention to classifier-match objects and distractor objects did not differ (Experiment 2). This suggests that although classifier distinctions do influence eye-gaze behavior, they do so only during linguistic processing of that distinction and not in moment-to-moment general conceptual processing.
  • Huettig, F., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2010). Listening to yourself is like listening to others: External, but not internal, verbal self-monitoring is based on speech perception. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 347 -374. doi:10.1080/01690960903046926.

    Abstract

    Theories of verbal self-monitoring generally assume an internal (pre-articulatory) monitoring channel, but there is debate about whether this channel relies on speech perception or on production-internal mechanisms. Perception-based theories predict that listening to one's own inner speech has similar behavioral consequences as listening to someone else's speech. Our experiment therefore registered eye-movements while speakers named objects accompanied by phonologically related or unrelated written words. The data showed that listening to one's own speech drives eye-movements to phonologically related words, just as listening to someone else's speech does in perception experiments. The time-course of these eye-movements was very similar to that in other-perception (starting 300 ms post-articulation), which demonstrates that these eye-movements were driven by the perception of overt speech, not inner speech. We conclude that external, but not internal monitoring, is based on speech perception.

Share this page