Phoneme restoration and empirical coverage of interactive activation and adaptive resonance models of human speech processing.

Abstract

Grossberg and Kazerounian [(2011). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130, 440-460] present a model of sequence representation for spoken word recognition, the cARTWORD model, which simulates essential aspects of phoneme restoration. Grossberg and Kazerounian also include simulations with the TRACE model presented by McClelland and Elman [(1986). Cognit. Psychol. 18, 1-86] that seem to indicate that TRACE cannot simulate phoneme restoration. Grossberg and Kazerounian also claim cARTWORD should be preferred to TRACE because of TRACE's implausible approach to sequence representation (reduplication of time-specific units) and use of non-modulatory feedback (i.e., without position-specific bottom-up support). This paper responds to Grossberg and Kazerounian first with TRACE simulations that account for phoneme restoration when appropriately constructed noise is used (and with minor changes to TRACE phoneme definitions), then reviews the case for reduplicated units and feedback as implemented in TRACE, as well as TRACE's broad and deep coverage of empirical data. Finally, it is argued that cARTWORD is not comparable to TRACE because cARTWORD cannot represent sequences with repeated elements, has only been implemented with small phoneme and lexical inventories, and has been applied to only one phenomenon (phoneme restoration). Without evidence that cARTWORD captures a similar range and detail of human spoken language processing as alternative models, it is premature to prefer cARTWORD to TRACE.