Citations & References¶
PhonoLex integrates data and methodologies from 15 research sources.
Data Sources¶
CMU Pronouncing Dictionary¶
Carnegie Mellon University. (2014). The CMU Pronouncing Dictionary (125,764 words). http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/cmudict
Open Dict Data¶
Open Dict Data. (2020). ipa-dict: Monolingual wordlists with pronunciation information in IPA. https://github.com/open-dict-data/ipa-dict
Psycholinguistic Norms¶
Lexical Properties¶
Word Frequency (SUBTLEX-US): Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977-990. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
Age of Acquisition: Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 978-990. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-012-0210-4
English Lexicon Project: Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., ... & Treiman, R. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445-459. DOI: 10.3758/BF03193014
Semantic Properties¶
Concreteness: Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 904-911. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5
Imageability: Cortese, M. J., & Fugett, A. (2004). Imageability ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 384-387. DOI: 10.3758/BF03195585
Affective Properties¶
Valence, Arousal, Dominance: Warriner, A. B., Kuperman, V., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1191-1207. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-012-0314-x
Sensorimotor Norms¶
Lancaster Sensorimotor Norms: Lynott, D., Connell, L., Brysbaert, M., Brand, J., & Carney, J. (2020). The Lancaster Sensorimotor Norms: Multidimensional measures of perceptual and action strength for 40,000 English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 52(3), 1271-1291. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-019-01316-z
Morphological Data¶
MorphoLex: Sanchez-Gutierrez, C. H., Mailhot, H., Deacon, S. H., & Wilson, M. A. (2018). MorphoLex: A derivational morphological database for 70,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 50(4), 1568-1580. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-017-0981-8
Cognitive Graph Sources¶
Word Associations¶
University of South Florida (USF): Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 402-407. DOI: 10.3758/BF03195588
Semantic Relatedness¶
MEN: Bruni, E., Tran, N. K., & Baroni, M. (2014). Multimodal distributional semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 49, 1-47. DOI: 10.1613/jair.4135
SimLex-999: Hill, F., Reichart, R., & Korhonen, A. (2015). SimLex-999: Evaluating semantic models with (genuine) similarity estimation. Computational Linguistics, 41(4), 665-695. DOI: 10.1162/COLI_a_00237
WordSim-353: Finkelstein, L., Gabrilovich, E., Matias, Y., Rivlin, E., Solan, Z., Wolfman, G., & Ruppin, E. (2001). Placing search in context: The concept revisited. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on World Wide Web, 406-414. DOI: 10.1145/371920.372094
Perceptual Confusability¶
Edinburgh Closed-set Confusability Corpus (ECCC): Marxer, R., Barker, J., Martin, N., & Coleman, J. (2016). Modelling speech intelligibility in adverse conditions: a corpus study. https://datashare.ed.ac.uk/handle/10283/2791
Semantic Priming¶
Semantic Priming Project (SPP): Hutchison, K. A., Balota, D. A., Neely, J. H., Cortese, M. J., Cohen-Shikora, E. R., Tse, C.-S., et al. (2013). The Semantic Priming Project. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1099-1114. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-012-0304-z
Phonological Theory¶
Word Complexity Measure¶
Stoel-Gammon, C. (2010). The Word Complexity Measure: Description and application to developmental phonology and disorders. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 24(4-5), 271-282. DOI: 10.3109/02699200903581059
Distinctive Features¶
Hayes, B. (2009). Introductory Phonology. Wiley-Blackwell.
Moisik, S. R., & Esling, J. H. (2011). The 'whole larynx' approach to laryngeal features. Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences XVII, 1406-1409.
Phonological Similarity¶
Levenshtein, V. I. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10(8), 707-710.
Clinical Intervention Approaches¶
Maximal Opposition¶
Gierut, J. A. (1989). Maximal opposition approach to phonological treatment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54(1), 9-19. DOI: 10.1044/jshd.5401.09
Gierut, J. A. (1990). Differential learning of phonological oppositions. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33(3), 540-549. DOI: 10.1044/jshr.3303.540
Gierut, J. A., & Neumann, H. J. (1992). Teaching and learning /th/: A non-confound. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 6(3), 191-200. DOI: 10.3109/02699209208985533
Comparative Review¶
Storkel, H. L. (2022). Minimal, Maximal, or Multiple: Which Contrastive Intervention Approach to Use With Children With Speech Sound Disorders? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 53(3), 632-645. DOI: 10.1044/2022_LSHSS-21-00137