A computational analysis of uniqueness points in auditory word recognition
Open accessIntegrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Auditory word recognition is better for high-frequency than low-frequency words.
“Auditoryword recognition is better for high-frequencythan low-frequencywords (Luce, 1986; Savin, 1963).”
From FREQUENCY EFFECTS IN LANGUAGE PROCESSING: A Review with Implications for Theories of Implicit and Explicit Language Acquisition (2002) · cites this paper as Luce, 1986
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ellis, N. C. (2002) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263102002024 · Cited by 2,230 · see citing works
Infants' Preference for the Predominant Stress Patterns of English Words
Jusczyk, P. W., Cutler, A., & Redanz, N. J. (1993) · Child Development · doi:10.2307/1131210 · Cited by 981 · see citing works
The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition
AMBRIDGE, B., KIDD, E., ROWLAND, C. F., & THEAKSTON, A. L. (2015) · Journal of Child Language · doi:10.1017/s030500091400049x · Cited by 589 · see citing works
Disambiguatory Signals are Stronger in Word-initial Positions
Pimentel, T., Cotterell, R., & Roark, B. (2021) · Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.3 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Luce, P. A.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Luce, Paul A.
- Venue
- Perception & Psychophysics
- Published
- 1986-05
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 155-158
- ISSN
- 0031-5117 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-5962
- OpenAlex
- W2010906431
- Cited by
- 206
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 1.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Perception & Psychophysics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS 12179)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Keywords
- auditory word recognition, mental lexicon, word frequency
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Phonetics, Semantics, Set, Psychology, 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
