Yahoo Canada Web Search

Search results

  1. Dec 31, 2006 · In mixed substitution errors the intrusion is both semantically and phonologically related to the target (e.g. 13 and 14). W e find mixed errors far more often

    • Help Center

      © 2008-2024 ResearchGate GmbH. All rights reserved. Terms;...

  2. May 18, 2023 · The existence of synonym and subsumative errors is documented in a larger open access data set that supports a range of new investigations of the semantic structure of lexical substitution and word blend speech errors.

    • 10.5334/joc.278
    • 2023
    • J Cogn. 2023; 6(1): 26.
  3. The shape of speech errors also supports fundamental assumptions in phonology. For example, the single phoneme effect states that most sound errors involve a single segment, and not sequences or features (Nooteboom 1969; Shattuck-Hufnagel 1983), giving psychological reality to phonological segments.

  4. Jan 1, 2023 · The mixed error effect is the finding that errors are often both phonologically and semantically related to the target; this includes blend errors (like ‘mainly/mostly’ → ‘monly’; Fromkin, 1971) and word substitutions or exchanges (‘start’ → ‘stop’; Dell, 1986). Two insights come from this observation.

  5. In this paper, we introduced a simulator that automates word substitution errors (given a WER) on perfectly transcribed corpora to simulate ASR-plausible errors, considering both phonemic and semantic similarities between words.

    • Rohit Voleti, Julie M. Liss, Visar Berisha
    • 10.1109/icassp.2019.8683367
    • 2019
    • 2019/05
  6. Semantic errors are primarily sensitive to the properties of the semantic field involved, whereas phonological errors are sensitive to phonological properties of the targets and intrusions. We explore the features of a corpus of naturally occurring word substitution speech errors.

  7. People also ask

  8. ABSTRACT. ‘Mixed errors’ are defined as errors that are similar to the correct response on more than one dimension and whose probability of occurrence is greater than a simple stages model would predict. Two examples of them are given: visual— semantic errors in word reading and semantic-phonological errors in spontaneous speech.