Phoneme restoration and empirical coverage of Interactive Activation and Adaptive Resonance models of human speech processing.

Abstract

Magnuson [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 137, 1481-1492 (2015)] makes claims for Interactive Activation (IA) models and against Adaptive Resonance Theory (ART) models of speech perception. Magnuson also presents simulations that claim to show that the TRACE model can simulate phonemic restoration, which was an explanatory target of the cARTWORD ART model. The theoretical analysis and review herein show that these claims are incorrect. More generally, the TRACE and cARTWORD models illustrate two diametrically opposed types of neural models of speech and language. The TRACE model embodies core assumptions with no analog in known brain processes. The cARTWORD model defines a hierarchy of cortical processing regions whose networks embody cells in laminar cortical circuits as part of the paradigm of laminar computing. cARTWORD further develops ART speech and language models that were introduced in the 1970s. It builds upon Item-Order-Rank working memories, which activate learned list chunks that unitize sequences to represent phonemes, syllables, and words. Psychophysical and neurophysiological data support Item-Order-Rank mechanisms and contradict TRACE representations of time, temporal order, silence, and top-down processing that exhibit many anomalous properties, including hallucinations of non-occurring future phonemes. Computer simulations of the TRACE model are presented that demonstrate these failures.