96, 459–491.43 Jusczyk, P. W. (1997). The discovery of spoken language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44 Klatt, D. H. (1989). Review of selected models of speech perception. In W. Marslen‐Wilson (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp. 169–226). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45 Lackner, J. R., & Goldstein, L. M. (1974). Primary auditory stream segregation of repeated consonant–vowel sequences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 56, 1651–1652.
46 Liberman, A. M., & Cooper, F. S. (1972). In search of the acoustic cues. In A. Valdman (Ed.), Papers in linguistics and phonetics to the memory of Pierre Delattre (pp. 329–338). The Hague: Mouton.
47 Liberman, A. M., Ingemann, F., Lisker, L., et al. (1959). Minimal rules for synthesizing speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 31, 1490–1499.
48 Liberman, A. M., Isenberg, D., & Rakerd, B. (1981). Duplex perception of cues stop consonants: Evidence for a phonetic mode. Perception & Psychophysics, 30, 133–143.
49 Liberman, A. M., & Mattingly, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, 21, 1–36.
50 Licklider, J. C. R. (1946). Effects of amplitude distortion upon the intelligibility of speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 18, 429–434.
51 Liebenthal, E., Binder, J. R., Piorkowski, R. L., & Remez, R. E. (2003). Short‐term reorganization of auditory analysis induced by phonetic experience. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 549–558.
52 Lindblom, B. (1996). Role of articulation in speech perception: Clues from production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99, 1683–1692.
53 Lisker, L. (1978). Rapid vs. rabid: A catalog of acoustic features that may cue the distinction. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Perception, SR‐54, 127–132.
54 Lotto, A. J., & Kluender, K. R. (1998). General contrast effects in speech perception: Effect of preceding liquid on stop consonant identification. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 602–619.
55 Lotto, A. J., Kluender, K. R., & Holt, L. L. (1997) Perceptual compensation for coarticulation by Japanese quail. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 1135–1140.
56 Magnotti, J. F., & Beauchamp, M. S. (2017). A causal inference model explains perception of the McGurk effect and other incongruent audiovisual speech. PLOS Computational Biology, 13, e1005229.
57 Massaro, D. W. (1994). Psychological aspects of speech perception: Implications for research and theory. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 219–263). San Diego: Academic Press.
58 Mattingly, I. G., Liberman, A. M., Syrdal, A. K., & Halwes, T. G. (1971). Discrimination in speech and nonspeech modes. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 131–157.
59 McDermott, J. H. (2009). The cocktail party problem. Current Biology, 19, R1024–1027.
60 Miller, G. A. (1946). Intelligibility of speech: effects of distortion. In Transmission and reception of sounds under combat conditions (pp. 86–108). Washington, DC: National Defense Research Committee.
61 Miller, G. A., & Licklider, J. C. R. (1950). The intelligibility of interrupted speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22, 167–173.
62 Mountcastle, V. B. (1998). Perceptual neuroscience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
63 Munhall, K. G., Gribble, P., Sacco, L., & Ward, M. (1996). Temporal constraints on the McGurk effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 351–362.
64 Neff, D. L., Jesteadt, W., & Brown, E. L. (1982). The relation between gap discrimination and auditory stream segregation. Perception & Psychophysics, 31, 493–501.
65 Nygaard, L. C. (1993). Phonetic coherence in duplex perception: Effects of acoustic differences and lexical status. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 268–286.
66 Parsons, T. W. (1976). Separation of speech from interfering speech by means of harmonic selection. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 60, 911–918.
67 Peña, M., Bonatti, L. L., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2002). Signal‐driven computations in speech processing. Science, 298, 604–607.
68 Pisoni, D. B., Tash, J. (1974). Reaction times to comparisons within and across phonetic categories. Perception & Psychophysics, 15, 285–290.
69 Rand, T. C. (1974). Dichotic release from masking for speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 55, 678–680.
70 Remez, R. E. (2001). The interplay of phonology and perception considered from the perspective of perceptual organization. In E. Hume & K. Johnson (Eds), The role of speech perception in phonology (pp. 27–52). San Diego: Academic Press.
71 Remez, R. E. (2008). Sine‐wave speech. In E. M. Izhikovitch (Ed.), Encyclopedia of computational neuroscience. Scholarpedia, 3, 2394.
72 Remez, R. E., Dubowski, K. R., Davids, M. L., et al. (2011). Estimating speech spectra by algorithm and by hand for synthesis from natural models. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130, 2173–2178.
73 Remez, R. E., Dubowski, K. R., Ferro, D. F., & Thomas, E. F. (forthcoming) Primitive audiovisual integration in the perception of speech.
74 Remez, R. E., Ferro, D. F., Wissig, S. C., & Landau, C. A. (2008). Asynchrony tolerance in the perceptual organization of speech. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 861–865.
75 Remez, R. E., Pardo, J. S., Piorkowski, R. L., & Rubin, P. E. (2001). On the bistability of sine wave analogues of speech. Psychological Science, 12, 24–29.
76 Remez, R. E., & Rubin, P. E. (1984). On the perception of intonation from sinusoidal sentences. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 429–440.
77 Remez, R. E., & Rubin, P. E. (1993). On the intonation of sinusoidal sentences: Contour and pitch height. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94, 1983–1988.
78 Remez, R. E., Rubin, P. E., Berns, S. M., et al. (1994). On the perceptual organization of speech. Psychological Review, 101, 129–156.
79 Remez, R. E., Rubin, P. E., Nygaard, L. C., & Howell, W. A. (1987). Perceptual normalization of vowels produced by sinu soidal voices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 41–60.
80 Remez, R. E., Rubin, P. E., Pisoni, D. B., & Carrell, T. D. (1981). Speech perception without traditional speech cues. Science, 212, 947–950.
81 Remez, R. E., & Thomas, E. F. (2013). Early recognition of speech. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4, 213–223.
82 Roberts, B., Summers, R. J., & Bailey, P. J. (2010). The perceptual organization of sine‐wave speech under competitive conditions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128, 804–817.
83 Roberts, B., Summers, R. J., & Bailey, P. J. (2015). Acoustic source characteristics, across‐formant integration, and speech intelligibility under competitive conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance Psychology, 41, 680–691.
84 Rosen, S. M., Fourcin, A. J., & Moore, B. C.
