title: Why um helps auditory word recognition: the temporal delay hypothesis.
abstract: Several studies suggest that speech understanding can sometimes benefit from the presence of filled pauses (uh, um, and the like), and that words following such filled pauses are recognised more quickly. Three experiments examined whether this is because filled pauses serve to delay the onset of upcoming words and these delays facilitate auditory word recognition, or whether the fillers themselves serve to signal upcoming delays in a way which informs listeners' reactions. Participants viewed pairs of images on a computer screen, and followed recorded instructions to press buttons corresponding to either an easy (unmanipulated, with a high-frequency name) or a difficult (visually blurred, low-frequency) image. In all three experiments, participants were faster to respond to easy images. In 50% of trials in each experiment, the name of the image was directly preceded by a delay; in the remaining trials an equivalent delay was included earlier in the instruction. Participants were quicker to respond when a name was directly preceded by a delay, regardless of whether this delay was filled with a spoken um, was silent, or contained an artificial tone. This effect did not interact with the effect of image difficulty, nor did it change over the course of each experiment. Taken together, our consistent finding that delays of any kind help word recognition indicates that natural delays such as fillers need not be seen as 'signals' to explain the benefits they have to listeners' ability to recognise and respond to the words which follow them.
authors: School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Martin.Corley@ed.ac.uk
authors: Martin
authors: M
authors: Corley
authors: Robert J
authors: RJ
authors: Hartsuiker
references: Science. 1995 Jun 16;268(5217):1632-4
references: 7777863
references: Mem Cognit. 2001 Mar;29(2):320-6
references: 11352215
references: Perception. 2004;33(2):217-36
references: 15109163
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Learn. 1980 Mar;6(2):174-215
references: 7373248
references: Cognition. 2002 May;84(1):73-111
references: 12062148
references: Cognition. 1986 Feb;22(1):1-39
references: 3709088
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2008 May;34(3):696-702
references: 18444766
references: J Psycholinguist Res. 2003 Jan;32(1):37-55
references: 12647562
references: Cognition. 1999 Dec 17;73(3):247-64
references: 10585516
references: Lang Speech. 1988 Apr-Jun;31 ( Pt 2):135-56
references: 3256770
references: J Psycholinguist Res. 2003 Jan;32(1):25-36
references: 12647561
references: Lang Speech. 2001 Jun;44(Pt 2):123-47
references: 11575901
references: Neuropsychologia. 2010 Dec;48(14):3982-92
references: 20950633
references: Q J Exp Psychol A. 1991 Aug;43(3):733-58
references: 1775664
references: Psychol Sci. 2004 Sep;15(9):578-82
references: 15327627
references: Cognition. 2007 Dec;105(3):658-68
references: 17173887