ArticleCognition2024
Contra assertions, feedback improves word recognition: How feedback and lateral inhibition sharpen signals over noise.
Article in Cognition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Speech Categorization Consistency Predicts Language and Reading Abilities in Korean School-Age Children.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
- Longitudinal Changes in the Structure of Speech Categorization Across School Age Years: Children Become More Gradient and More Consistent.Developmental science · 2026Article
- Article
- Fundamental dimensions of real-time word recognition in challenging listening conditions exhibit within-subject stability and link to outcomes.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2025Article
- Recurrent neural networks as neuro-computational models of human speech recognition.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Simple Recurrent Networks are Interactive.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Timecourse of bottom-up and top-down language processing during a picture-based semantic priming task.Language, cognition and neuroscience · 2025Article
- Lexical Feedback in the Time-Invariant String Kernel (TISK) Model of Spoken Word Recognition.Journal of cognition · 2024Article
- Morphology in a Parallel, Distributed, Interactive Architecture of Language Production.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Whether top-down feedback modulates perception has deep implications for cognitive theories. Debate has been vigorous in the domain of spoken word recognition, where competing computational models and agreement on at least one diagnostic experimental paradigm suggest that the debate may eventually be resolvable. Norris and Cutler (2021) revisit arguments against lexical feedback in spoken word recognition models. They also incorrectly claim that recent computational demonstrations that feedback promotes accuracy and speed under noise (Magnuson et al., 2018) were due to the use of the Luce choice rule rather than adding noise to inputs (noise was in fact added directly to inputs). They also claim that feedback cannot improve word recognition because feedback cannot distinguish signal from noise. We have two goals in this paper. First, we correct the record about the simulations of Magnuson et al. (2018). Second, we explain how interactive activation models selectively sharpen signals via joint effects of feedback and lateral inhibition that boost lexically-coherent sublexical patterns over noise. We also review a growing body of behavioral and neural results consistent with feedback and inconsistent with autonomous (non-feedback) architectures, and conclude that parsimony supports feedback. We close by discussing the potential for synergy between autonomous and interactive approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.