<p>A simple explanation for the phenomenon is top-down feedback. As the bottom-up acoustic/phonological input is coming in, there is top-down feedback based on your knowledge of the language, the situation, and all of the other contextual information, which is helping to constrain or inform your interpretation of the bottom-up signal. A classic example that is close to the example in your question is the <em>phoneme restoration effect</em> (originally demonstrated by Warren in 1970, and studied in depth by Samuel for decades): if a speech sound is replaced with an extraneous sound like a cough, listeners still report hearing the missing speech sound. Importantly, they report hearing exactly the sound that would belong in that context. So a manipulated word like "*eel"(where the * corresponds to the cough), sounds like "wheel" if it is the context "the *eel was on the axle", but the same word sounds like "peel" in the context of "the *eel was on the orange".</p>

<p>This kind of integration of multiple sources of information is typically called "interactive processing". For a review in the domain of speech perception see <a href="http://www.danmirman.org/pdfs/TiCS2006exchange.pdf" rel="nofollow">McClelland, Mirman, &amp; Holt (2006)</a>.</p>

<p>References:</p>

<p>McClelland, J. L., Mirman, D., &amp; Holt, L. L. (2006). Are there interactive processes in speech perception? <em>Trends in cognitive sciences</em>, 10(8), 363–369. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.06.007</p>

<p>Samuel, A. G. (1981). Phonemic restoration: Insights from a new methodology. <em>Journal of Experimental Psychology: General</em>, 110(4), 474–494.</p>

<p>Samuel, A. G. (1996). Does lexical information influence the perceptual restoration of phonemes? <em>Journal of Experimental Psychology: General</em>, 125(1), 28–51.</p>

<p>Warren, R. M. (1970). Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds. <em>Science</em>, 167(3917), 392–393.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-02-07T14:23:34.547Z
2013-02-07T14:23:34.547Z
Dan M.
<p>My personal experience suggests there is a background process taking place when interpreting a partially heard utterance. The sound is taken in, the conscious part of my mind begins the process of asking for a repetition because of imperfect reception and then a possible interpretation is delivered to my conscious mind for acceptance or rejection. Usually the logic can be seen, how a few words heard imperfectly can be combined to make sense, a partially heard name combined with a pronoun and a mental list of participants narrows the possibilities to one or two, but I don't have a sense of doing this analysis consciously. A second, almost a paraphrase, interpretation is offered up  seemingly from the sub-conscious, "she's asking about Tony's birthday."</p>

<p>If you try to search for linguistics or language and error correction you will find out that there is a lot of concern about teacher behavior during language acquisition. That is <em>not</em> what I want to know about.</p>

<p><strong>I would like to know if there is a subfield in cog-sci that deals with error correction specifically with regard to heard language.</strong> Somewhere I can begin a search. Sometimes all you need is the right search terms.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-01-31T01:44:22.837Z
Please consult [this answer](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/993/29) on proper use of unconscious vs. subconscious in the current title of this question.
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-02-01T06:51:14.893Z
Sort of feel that my use of sub-conscious is entirely appropriate here since it reveals my status as a non-initiate.
timquinn
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-02-01T06:51:57.780Z
It is a positive use of ambiguity, no?
timquinn
<terminology><language><signal-detection>
Is there sub-conscious error correction in interpreting heard language?
timquinn
# Is there sub-conscious error correction in interpreting heard language?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-01-30)

My personal experience suggests there is a background process taking place when interpreting a partially heard utterance. The sound is taken in, the conscious part of my mind begins the process of asking for a repetition because of imperfect reception and then a possible interpretation is delivered to my conscious mind for acceptance or rejection. Usually the logic can be seen, how a few words heard imperfectly can be combined to make sense, a partially heard name combined with a pronoun and a mental list of participants narrows the possibilities to one or two, but I don't have a sense of doing this analysis consciously. A second, almost a paraphrase, interpretation is offered up seemingly from the sub-conscious, "she's asking about Tony's birthday."

If you try to search for linguistics or language and error correction you will find out that there is a lot of concern about teacher behavior during language acquisition. That is *not* what I want to know about.

**I would like to know if there is a subfield in cog-sci that deals with error correction specifically with regard to heard language.** Somewhere I can begin a search. Sometimes all you need is the right search terms.

**Tags:** terminology, language, signal-detection

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Please consult [this answer](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/993/29) on proper use of unconscious vs. subconscious in the current title of this question.  
> **username_0**: Sort of feel that my use of sub-conscious is entirely appropriate here since it reveals my status as a non-initiate.  
> **username_0**: It is a positive use of ambiguity, no?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2013-02-07. Score: 2

A simple explanation for the phenomenon is top-down feedback. As the bottom-up acoustic/phonological input is coming in, there is top-down feedback based on your knowledge of the language, the situation, and all of the other contextual information, which is helping to constrain or inform your interpretation of the bottom-up signal. A classic example that is close to the example in your question is the *phoneme restoration effect* (originally demonstrated by Warren in 1970, and studied in depth by Samuel for decades): if a speech sound is replaced with an extraneous sound like a cough, listeners still report hearing the missing speech sound. Importantly, they report hearing exactly the sound that would belong in that context. So a manipulated word like "\*eel"(where the \* corresponds to the cough), sounds like "wheel" if it is the context "the \*eel was on the axle", but the same word sounds like "peel" in the context of "the \*eel was on the orange".

This kind of integration of multiple sources of information is typically called "interactive processing". For a review in the domain of speech perception see [McClelland, Mirman, & Holt (2006)](http://www.danmirman.org/pdfs/TiCS2006exchange.pdf).

References:

McClelland, J. L., Mirman, D., & Holt, L. L. (2006). Are there interactive processes in speech perception? *Trends in cognitive sciences*, 10(8), 363–369. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.06.007

Samuel, A. G. (1981). Phonemic restoration: Insights from a new methodology. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General*, 110(4), 474–494.

Samuel, A. G. (1996). Does lexical information influence the perceptual restoration of phonemes? *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General*, 125(1), 28–51.

Warren, R. M. (1970). Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds. *Science*, 167(3917), 392–393.


---

