The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Pitch accent in spoken-word recognition in Japanese.
Open accessAbstract
Three experiments addressed the question of whether pitch-accent information may be exploited in the process of recognizing spoken words in Tokyo Japanese. In a two-choice classification task, listeners judged from which of two words, differing in accentual structure, isolated syllables had been extracted (e.g., ka from baka HL or gaka LH); most judgments were correct, and listeners' decisions were correlated with the fundamental frequency characteristics of the syllables. In a gating experiment, listeners heard initial fragments of words and guessed what the words were; their guesses overwhelmingly had the same initial accent structure as the gated word even when only the beginning CV of the stimulus (e.g., na- from nagasa HLL or nagashi LHH) was presented. In addition, listeners were more confident in guesses with the same initial accent structure as the stimulus than in guesses with different accent. In a lexical decision experiment, responses to spoken words (e.g., ame HL) were speeded by previous presentation of the same word (e.g., ame HL) but not by previous presentation of a word differing only in accent (e.g., ame LH). Together these findings provide strong evidence that accentual information constrains the activation and selection of candidates for spoken-word recognition.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Even slight shifts in the position of the accent nucleus can alter lexical meaning, making it crucial for intelligibility and naturalness (e.g., the Japanese word 'hashi,' which means 'chopsticks' or 'bridge' depending on accent placement).”
From PASQA: Pitch-Accent-Focused Speech Quality Assessment Model Trained on Synthetic Speech with Accent Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [9]
In the citing paper
“For example, in Japanese, pitch accent serves as such a perceptual cue [8, 9].”
From PASQA: Pitch-Accent-Focused Speech Quality Assessment Model Trained on Synthetic Speech with Accent Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [9]
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 39 · Cited by 129
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- 1986, Forbear is a homophone: lexical prosody does not constrain lexical access, Language and Speech, 29, 201, 10.1177/002383098602900302 · DOI
- 1997, Lexical tone in Cantonese spoken-word processing, Percept. Psychophys., 59, 165, 10.3758/BF03211886 · DOI
- 1997, Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review, Language and Speech, 40, 141, 10.1177/002383099704000203 · DOI
- 1963, Intelligibility of tonic accents, Phonetica, 10, 203, 10.1159/000258171 · DOI
- 1996, Auditory lexical decision, Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 559, 10.1080/016909696386944 · DOI
- 1996, Gating, Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 597, 10.1080/016909696386999 · DOI
- 1982, Perception of CV-syllables isolated from Japanese connected speech, Language and Speech, 25, 175, 10.1177/002383098202500204 · DOI
- 1991, The mental representation of lexical form: A phonological approach to the recognition lexicon, Cognition, 38, 245, 10.1016/0010-0277(91)90008-R · DOI
- 1987, Parallel processing in spoken word recognition, Cognition, 25, 17
- 1994, Levels of perceptual representation and process in lexical access: words, phonemes, and features, Psychol. Rev., 101, 653, 10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.653 · DOI
- 1981, Perception of anticipatory coarticulation effects, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 69, 559, 10.1121/1.385484 · DOI
- 1982, Perception of anticipatory coarticulation effects in vowel-stop consonant-vowel sequences, J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perf., 8, 473, 10.1037/0096-1523.8.3.473 · DOI
- 1986, The TRACE model of speech perception, Cogn. Psychol., 18, 1, 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90015-0 · DOI
- 1994, Competition in spoken word recognition: Spotting words in other words, J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cog., 20, 621, 10.1037/0278-7393.20.3.621 · DOI
- 1995, Role of prosodic features in the human process of perceiving spoken words and sentences in Japanese, J. Acoust. Soc. Jpn., 16, 311, 10.1250/ast.16.311 · DOI
- 1994, Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition, Cognition, 52, 189, 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90043-4 · DOI
- 1990, Rhythmic structure of Japanese and syllable structure, IEICE Technical Report, 89, 55
- 1993, Mora or syllable? Speech segmentation in Japanese, Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 358
- 1996, The representation of Japanese moraic nasals, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 100, 3831, 10.1121/1.417239 · DOI
- 1984, Segmental phonology and the perception of syntactic structure, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 450, 10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90291-3 · DOI
- 1961, Nihongo no akusento, (Japanese accent) Gengo Seikatsu, 117, 14
- 1997, Exploitation of stress information in spoken-word recognition in Dutch, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 102, 3136, 10.1121/1.420647 · DOI
- 1995, Final accent vs. no accent: Utterance-final neutralization in Tokyo Japanese, Journal of Phonetics, 23, 487, 10.1006/jpho.1995.0035 · DOI
- 1997, Japanese final-accented and unaccented phrases, Journal of Phonetics, 25, 43, 10.1006/jpho.1996.0033 · DOI
- 1984, Subcategorical mismatches slow phonetic judgments, Percept. Psychophys., 35, 49, 10.3758/BF03205924 · DOI
- 1991, Subcategorical phonetic mismatches and lexical access, Percept. Psychophys., 50, 351, 10.3758/BF03212227 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Cutler, A., & Otake, T.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics (NL)
- Dokkyo University (JP)
- ORCID
- Cutler, Anne
- Venue
- The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
- Publisher
- Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
- Published
- 1999-03-01
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1877-1888
- ISSN
- 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-8524
- OpenAlex
- W2061659505
- Cited by
- 129
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 9.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (1999-08-01)
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
- Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- Ohio State University
- Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
- National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Keywords
- pitch accent, spoken word recognition, Tokyo Japanese, fundamental frequency, lexical decision, word recognition
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Japan, Phonetics, Pitch Perception, Speech Acoustics, Speech Perception
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review