context in the behavioural data would suggest that there might be significant differences in terms of brain activity which could be attributed to these effects. Previous unpublished work using the same paradigm (Golestani, Hervais-Adelman, Obleser & Scott) found that the
36 angular gyrus was more activated for semantically related compared to non-related trials in the native language. Our data did not reveal any effect in the brain, neither for the language by semantic-relatedness interaction, nor for the main effect of language.
With regards to the effect of language, participants performed better and faster in their native language, suggesting that there is an additional cost for understanding speech in noise in the non-native language. I therefore expected this difficulty to be reflected in the
neuroimaging data by an increased activity in regions related to phonological and semantic memory in the non-native language condition. In particular, this difference was expected in inferior fontal gyri bilaterally, left temporal and parietal regions and left insula, according to previous studies demonstrating the implication of these areas in phonological working memory (Shivde & Thompson-Schill, 2004; Chee et al., 2004) and semantic processing (Shivde & Thompson-Schill, 2004). One reason for this apparent lack of differential
activations between native and non-native language in the neuroimaging data could be related to the design we employed. Given that language alternated between blocks, part of the
variability caused by the difference between languages could have been mistakenly attributed to the variability due to movements between blocks. Further, the fact that the blocks were long in duration (each block lasted nearly 14 minutes) might have decreased the power of the comparison between languages.
Concerning the language by semantic-relatedness interaction, an effect was expected in the left angular gyrus, in line with previous unpublished observations. Previous studies using sentences also demonstrated that left angular gyrus is involved in speech
comprehension as a function of signal intelligibility and linguistic context. Obleser, Wise, Dresner and Scott (2007) observed increased left angular gyrus activation for high cloze probability, 8-channels noise-vocoded sentences but not for equally degraded low cloze probability sentences, nor for completely unintelligible or easily comprehensible sentences.
Further, Obleser and Kotz (2010) found an increased response in left angular gyrus which accompanied successful speech comprehension as a function of better signal quality or semantic contextual information, suggesting that this structure may play an integrating role between acoustic and semantic processes. This view is further supported by functional connectivity results for this region (Obleser et al., 2007), showing that left angular gyrus was connected to frontal lobe regions, among which the inferior frontal gyrus, adjacent to Broca’s area.
Our results did not reveal any brain areas in which there was an effect of the semantic-relatedness by language interaction. The fact that semantic context (i.e. semantically related
37 and unrelated primes) varied between trials on a within-block, within-mini-block basis, but language alternated between blocks may not have been the most efficient way to obtain robust differential responses for the language by semantic-relatedness interaction. Given that this interaction is a rather small, within-subjects effect, a more sensitive design including randomly distributed trials in the native and non-native language within blocks might have been proved more efficient.
A potential criticism of the present study could be the fact that participants were asked to recognize the target word between two words which did not constitute phonological
minimal pairs. Thus, by identifying one phoneme of the target word participants were in theory able to correctly recognize it from the distracter, especially in the case of fricatives which survive noise masking better that labials and dentals (Miller & Nicely, 1955;
Boothroyd et al., 1996). However, targets were embedded in more than one level of noise, in order to counterbalance the differential effect of noise-masking on phonemes identification.
Moreover, the significant language by relatedness interaction in the behavioural data is a robust effect which cannot be explained by a phoneme identification strategy.
Conclusions
The data presented above demonstrate that top-down influences have a major effect in speech perception. In particular, semantic context is used more efficiently by listeners in their native compared to non-native language in order to understand speech under adverse listening conditions. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that the motor system is recruited while listening to speech in noise but not clear speech, suggesting that motor representations might be an additional source of information underlying challenging speech comprehension. Taking into account the increasing amount of studies showing the engagement of motor regions in speech perception, I interpret this finding as evidence for the existence of a shared code between language production and perception. Contrary to the first instantiations of the motor theory of speech perception, this code is not always necessary to support comprehension but supplies the system with supplementary, non-acoustic representations when the acoustic input does not provide sufficient information in order to be successfully decoded.
38
References
Adank, P., & Devlin, J. T. (2010). On-line plasticity in spoken sentence comprehension:
Adapting to time-compressed speech. Neuroimage, 49(1), 1124-32.
Altmann, G., & Young, D. (1993). Factors affecting adaptation to time-compressed speech.
Paper presented at the Eurospeech 9, Berlin, Germany.
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler,B., Loftis,B., Neely,D. L., Nelson,D. L., Simpson, G. B. & Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project.
Behavioral Research Methods, 39 (3), 445–459.
Bamiou, D.-E., Musiek, F. E., & Luxon, L. M. (2003). The insula (Island of Reil) and its role in auditory processing. Literature review. Brain research. Brain research reviews, 42(2), 143-54.
Bernstein, I. H., Bissonnette, V., Vyas, A. & Barclay, P. (1989). Semantic priming: Subliminal perception or context? Perception & Psychophysics, 45 (2), 153–161.
Boothroyd, A., Mulhearn, B., Gong, J. & Ostroff, J. (1996). Effects of spectral smearing on phoneme and word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100 (3), 1807–1818.
Bradlow, A. R., & Alexander, J. A. (2007). Semantic and phonetic enhancements for speech-in-noise recognition by native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121 (4), 2339–2349.
Bradlow, A. R. & Pisoni, D. B. (1999). Recognition of spoken words by native and non-native listeners: Talker-, listener-, and item-related factors. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106 (4), 2074–2085.
Britz, J., Van De Ville, D., & Michel, C. M. (2010). BOLD correlates of EEG topography reveal rapid resting-state network dynamics. Neuroimage, 52(4), 1162-70.
Broca, P. (1861). Remarques sur le siege de la faculte du langage articule, suivies d'une observation d'aphemie (perte de la parole). Bulletins de la societe anatomique (Paris), 2(6), 330-357.
Bronkhorst, A. W., & Plomp, R. (1989). Binaural speech intelligibilityin noise for hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 86(4), 1374–1383.
Chee, M. W., Hon, N., Lee, H. L., & Soon, C. S. (2001). Relative language proficiency modulates BOLD signal change when bilinguals perform semantic judgments. Blood oxygen level dependent. Neuroimage, 13(6), 1155-63.
39 Chee, M. W. L., Soon, C. S., Lee, H. L., & Pallier, C. (2004). Left insula activation: a marker
for language attainment in bilinguals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(42), 15265-70.
Clarke, C. M., & Garrett, M. F. (2004). Rapid adaptation to foreign-accented English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116(6), 3647.
Collins, A.M., & Loftus, E.F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing.
Psychological Review, 82, 407-428.
Daltrozzo, J., Signoret, C., Tillmann, B., & Perrin, F. (2011). Subliminal semantic priming in speech. PloS ONE, 6(5), e20273.
Davis, M. H., & Johnsrude, I. S. (2003). Hierarchical processing in spoken language comprehension. The Journal of Neuroscience, 23(8), 3423-3431.
Davis, M. H., & Johnsrude, I. S. (2007). Hearing speech sounds: top-down influences on the interface between audition and speech perception. Hearing research, 229(1-2), 132-47.
Draine, S. C., & Greenwald, a G. (1998). Replicable unconscious semantic priming. Journal of experimental psychology. General, 127(3), 286-303.
Dronkers, N. F. (1996). A new brain region for coordinating speech articulation. Nature, 384, 159-161.
Eickhoff, S. B., Heim, S., Zilles, K., & Amunts, K. (2009). A systems perspective on the effective connectivity of overt speech production. Philosophocal Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 367(1896), 2399-2421.
Faulkner, A., Rosen, S., & Smith, C. (2000). Effects of the salience of pitch and periodicity information on the intelligibility of four-channel vocoded speech: implications for cochlear implants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108(4), 1877-87.
Ferrand, L., & Alario, X., (1998). Normes d’associations verbales pour 366 noms d’objets concrets. L’ Année Psychologique, 98, 689–739.
Fowler, C. A., & Dekle, D. J. (1991). Listening with eye and hand: cross-modal contributions to speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 17(3), 816-828.
Fransson, P., & Marrelec, G. (2008). The precuneus/posterior cingulate cortex plays a pivotal role in the default mode network: Evidence from a partial correlation network
analysis. Neuroimage, 42(3), 1178-84.
Galantucci, B., Fowler, C. A., & Turvey, M. T. (2006). The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychon Bull Rev., 13(3), 361–377.
40 Ganong, W. F., 3rd. (1980). Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Journal of
Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 6(1), 110-125.
Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1997). Integrating form and meaning: a distributed model of speech perception. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 613-656.
Golestani, N., Rosen, S., & Scott, S. K. (2009). Native-language benefit for understanding speech-in-noise: The contribution of semantics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(3), 385-392.
Golestani, N., & Zatorre, R. J. (2004). Learning new sounds of speech: reallocation of neural substrates. Neuroimage, 21(2), 494-506.
Hall, D. A., Haggard, M. P., Akeroyd, M. A., Palmer, A. R., Summerfield, A. Q., Elliott, M.
R., et al. (1999). "Sparse" temporal sampling in auditory fMRI. Human Brain Mapping, 7(3), 213-223.
Henson, R. N., & Penny, W. D. (2005). ANOVAs and SPM. London: Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience: Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience.
Hervais-Adelman, A., Carlyon, R., Davis, M. H., & Johnsrude, I. S. (submitted). Motor regions are recruited for effortful comprehension of noise-vocoded words: evidence from fMRI.
Hervais-Adelman, A. G., Davis, M. H., Johnsrude, I. S., Taylor, K. J., & Carlyon, R. P.
(2011). Generalization of perceptual learning of vocoded speech. Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 37(1), 283-95.
Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2007). The cortical organisation of speech processing. Nature, 8, 393-402.
Hintzman, D. L. (1986). "Schema abstraction" in a multiple-trace memory model.
Psychological Review, 93(4), 411-428.
Holle, H., Obleser, J., Rueschemeyer, S.-A., & Gunter, T. C. (2010). Integration of iconic gestures and speech in left superior temporal areas boosts speech comprehension under adverse listening conditions. Neuroimage, 49(1), 875-84.
Iacoboni, M. (2008). The role of premotor cortex in speech perceptions: Evidence from fMRI and rTMS. Journal of Physiology – Paris, 102(1-3), 31-34.
Joubert, S., Beauregard, M., Walter, N., Bourgouin, P., Beaudoin, G., Leroux, J.-M., Karama, S. & Lecours, A. R. (2004). Neural correlates of lexical and sublexical processes in reading. Brain and language, 89(1), 9-20.
Kalikow, D. N., Stevens, K. N. & Elliott, L. L. (1977). Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability.
41 Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61 (5), 1337–1351.
Kirsner, K., Dunn, J. C., & Standen, P. (1987). Record-based word recognition. In C. M.
(Ed.), Attention & performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 147-167).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Klatt, D. H. (1979). Speech perception: A model of acoustic–phonetic analysis and lexical access. Journal of Phonetics(7), 279-312.
Knecht, S., Deppe, M., Dräger, B., Bobe, L., Lohmann, H., Ringelstein, E., & Henningsen, H.
(2000). Language lateralization in healthy right-handers. Brain : a journal of neurology, 123(1), 74-81.
Levi, S. V., & Pisoni, D. B. (2007). Indexical and Linguistic Channels in Speech Perception : Some Effects of Voiceovers on Advertising Outcomes. In Lowrey, T. M. (Ed.), Psycholinguistic Phenomena in Marketing Communications, (pp. 203-220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Londei, A., D’Ausilio, A., Basso, D. et al. (2010). Sensory-motor brain network connectivity for speech comprehension. Human brain mapping, 31(4), 567-80.
Liberman, A. M., Cooper, E., Shankweiler, D., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 74, 431-461.
Liberman, A. M., & Mattingly, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised.
Cognition, 21(1), 1-36.
Liberman, A. M., & Whalen, D. H. (2000). On the relation of speech to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(5), 187-196.
Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence- intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1, 476–490.
Loizou, P. C., Dorman, M., & Tu, Z. (1999). On the number of channels needed to understand speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106(4 Pt 1), 2097-103.
Mason, M.E.J. (1995). A distributed memory model of semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 3–23.
Mayo, L. H., Florentine, M. & Buus, S. (1997). Age of second- language acquisition and perception of speech in noise. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40 (3), 686–693.
McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 1-86.
McGurk, H., & MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264(5588), 746-748.
42 Mehler, J., Sebastian, N., Altmann, G., Dupoux, E., Christophe, A., & Pallier, C. (1993).
Understanding Compressed Sentences : The Role of Rhythm and Meaning. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 682, 272-282,
Meister, I. G., Wilson, S. M., Deblieck, C., Wu, A. D., & Iacoboni, M. (2007). The essential role of premotor cortex in speech perception. Current Biology, 17(19), 1692-1696.
Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognising pairs of words:
evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90(2), 227-234.
Miller, G. A. & Nicely, P. E. (1955). An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27 (2), 338–
352.
Millman, R. E., Woods, W. P. & Quinlan, P. T. (2011). Functionnal asymmetries in the representation of noise-vocoded speech. Neuroimage, 54(3), 2364-73.
Moreira, S. & Hamilton, M. (2006). Goats don’t wear coats: An examination of semantic interference in rhyming assessments of reading readiness for English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 30 (2), 547–557.
Möttönen, R., & Watkins, K. (2009). Motor Representations of Articulators Contribute to Categorical Perception of Speech Sounds. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(31), 9819.
Nabelek, A. K. & Donahue, A. M. (1984). Perception of consonants in reverberation by native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 75 (2), 632–
634.
Narain, C., Scott, S. K., Wise, R. J., Rosen, S., Leff, A., Iversen, S. D. (2003). Defining a left-lateralized response specific to intelligible speech using fMRI. Cerebral Cortex, 13(12), 1362-1368.
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L. & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms.
http://w3.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/ (retrieved May 16, 2009).
New, B., Brysbaert, M., Veronis, J. & Pallier, C. (2007). The use of film subtitles to estimate word frequencies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28 (4), 661–677.
Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2000). Merging information in speech recognition:
feedback is never necessary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(3), 299-325.
Nygaard, L. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Talker-specific learning in spee ch perception.
Perception and Psychophysics, 60(3), 355-376.
43 Nygaard, L. C., Sommers, M. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (2011). Speech perception as a
talker-contingent process. Psychological Science, 5(1), 42-46.
Obleser, J., & Kotz, S. A. (2010). Expectancy constraints in degraded speech modulate the language comprehension network. Cerebral Cortex, 20(3), 633-640.
Obleser, J., Wise, R. J. S., Dresner, A. M., & Scott, S. K. (2007). Functional integration across brain regions improves speech perception under adverse listening conditions.
The Journal of neuroscience, 27(9), 2283-9.
Orfanidou, E., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Davis, M. H. (2006). Neural response suppression predicts repetition priming of spoken words and pseudowords. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 18(8), 1237-52.
Petrovici, J. N., (1983). Speech disorders in tumors of the supplementary motor area.
Zentralblatt für Neurochirurgie 44(2), 97-104.
Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Schneider, B. S., & Daneman, M. (1995). How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 593-608.
Raichle, M. E., Macleod, A. M., Snyder, A. Z., Powers, W. J., Gusnard, D. A., & Shulman, G.
L., (2001). A default mode of brain function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 98(2), 676-682.
Remez, R. E., Fellowes, J. M., & Rubin, P. E. (1997). Talker identification based on phonetic information. Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and
performance, 23(3), 651-66.
Scott, S.K., Blank, C.C., Rosen, S., & Wise, R.J. (2000). Identification of a pathway for intelligible speech in the left temporal lobe. Brain: A journal of neurology 123 (12), 2400-2406.
Scott, S. K., Rosen, S., Lang, H., & Wise, R. J. (2006). Neural correlates of intelligibility in speech investigated with noise vocoded speech-a positron emission tomography study.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120(2), 1075-1083.
Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F. G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J., & Ekelid, M. (1995). Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science, 270, 303-304.
Shelton, J. R., & Martin, R. C. (1992). How semantic is automatic semantic priming? Journal of experimental psychology. Learning memory and cognition, 18(6), 1191-210.
Shivde, G., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2004). Dissociating semantic and phonological
maintenance using fMRI. Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 4(1), 10-9.
44 Sterzer, P., Kleinschmidt, A., & Rees, G. (2009). The neural bases of multistable perception.
Trends in cognitive sciences, 13(7), 310-8.
Takata, Y. & Nabelek, A. K. (1990). English consonant recognition in noise and in
reverberation by Japanese and American listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88 (2), 663–666.
Tenpenny, P. L. (1995). Abstractionist versus episodic theories of repetition priming and word identification. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2(3), 339-363.
Tremblay, P., & Small, S. L. (2011). On the context-dependent nature of the contribution of the ventral premotor cortex to speech perception. Neuroimage, 57(4), 1561-1571.
Tulving, E., & Schacter, D. L. (1990). Priming and human memory systems. Science, 247(4940), 301-306.
Van de Ville, D., Britz, J., & Michel, C. M. (2010). EEG microstate sequences in healthy humans at rest reveal scale-free dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(42), 18179-84.
Van Lancker, D. R., Kreiman, J., & Cummings, J. (1989). Voice perception deficits:
neuroanatomical correlates of phonagnosia. Journal of Clinical Experimental Neuropsychology, 11(5), 665-674.
Van Wijngaarden, S. J., Steeneken, H. J. & Houtgast, T. (2002). Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non- native talkers. Journal of theAcoustical Society of America, 112 (6), 3004–3013.
Vouloumanos, A., Kiehl, K.A., Werker, J. F., & Liddle, P. F. (2001). Detection of sounds in the auditory stream: event-related fMRI evidence for differential activation to speech and nonspeech. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 13(7), 994-1005.
Wada J, & Rasmussen T. (1960). Intracarotid injection of sodium amytal for the lateralization of cerebral speech dominance. Journal of Neurosurgery, 17, 266–82.
Watkins, K., & Paus, T. (2004). Modulation of motor excitability during speech perception:
The role of Broca's area. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(6), 978-987.
Wernicke, C. (1874). Der Aphasische symptomencomplex. Breslau: Kohn and Weigert.
Wilson, S., Saygin, A., Sereno, M., & Iacoboni, M. (2004). Listening to speech activates motor areas involved in speech production. Nature neuroscience, 7(7), 701-2.
Wong, P. C. M., Uppunda, A. K., Parrish, T. B., & Dhar, S. (2008). Cortical mechanisms of speech perception in noise. Journal of speech, language, and hearing research, 51(4), 1026-41.
Appendix
English_list1
target prime semantic foil SNR_list1 SNR_list2
accident car rel bicycle -9 -7
acrobat cradle unrel elephant -9 -7
actor bullet unrel popcorn -7 -9
addiction drug rel alcohol -7 -9
address home rel parent clear -5
adult rubber unrel woman clear -5
afternoon husband unrel morning -5 clear
air sky rel cloud -5 clear
alarm red rel music -9 -7
alcohol lamb unrel liquor -9 -7
algae seat unrel river -7 -9
alligator crocodile rel animal -7 -9
alphabet letters rel envelope clear -5
ambulance principle unrel clinic clear -5
animal rule unrel puppy -5 clear
ankle foot rel leg -5 clear
ant insect rel bee -9 -7
arm leg rel hand -7 -9
arrow target rel practice clear -5
artist obliged unrel canvas clear -5
ash kept unrel hot -5 clear
author book rel paper -5 clear
automn leaf rel flower -9 -7
balcony immediate unrel building -9 -7
ball couch unrel flat -7 -9
ballet dancer rel music -7 -9
balloon air rel water clear -5
banana forest unrel pineapple clear -5
bank forest unrel rich -5 clear
barbecue steak rel hamburger -5 clear
beach normal unrel green -9 -7
bee input unrel tea -7 -9
belt pants rel legs clear -5
bicycle guess unrel circle clear -5
bird jacket unrel light -5 clear
breakfast morning rel evening -5 clear
brick red rel blood -9 -7
broccoli plane unrel vegetable -9 -7
bucket jean unrel castle -7 -9
bus school rel book -7 -9
cabbage leaf rel lettuce clear -5
cactus frame unrel needle clear -5
cage reference unrel cat -5 clear
camel desert rel cactus -9 -7
candle fix unrel paper -9 -7
canoe data unrel water -7 -9
canvas art rel painting -7 -9
45
target prime semantic foil SNR_list1 SNR_list2
captain ship rel water clear -5
car ray unrel stop clear -5
carpet rest unrel ceiling -5 clear
carrot orange rel apple -5 clear
cat mouse rel rat -9 -7
cave rule unrel stone -9 -7
ceiling shown unrel carpet -7 -9
chair table rel couch -7 -9
cheese bread rel dough clear -5
cherry notes unrel flower clear -5
chicken cab unrel yellow -5 clear
chocolate candy rel fattening -5 clear
circus plush unrel funny -9 -7
cliff charter unrel hill -7 -9
cloud sky rel rain -7 -9
coffee cream rel white clear -5
cord flesh unrel call clear -5
corn class unrel grass -5 clear
costume mask rel disguise -5 clear
cotton ball rel soccer -9 -7
couch block unrel seat -9 -7
cow suit unrel white -7 -9
cucumber salad rel vegetable -7 -9
cup coffee rel tea clear -5
curtain serious unrel mirror clear -5
cushion coward unrel blanket -5 clear
daughter son rel mother -5 clear
day light rel sun -9 -7
deck forth unrel sail -9 -7
dentist scene unrel doctor -7 -9
desert dry rel towel -7 -9
desk lamp rel light clear -5
diamond meat unrel jewel clear -5
diaper forest unrel infant -5 clear
dish food rel lunch -5 clear
doctor sick rel surgeon -9 -7
document november unrel important -9 -7
doll girl rel boy -7 -9
ear roof unrel mouth -5 clear
earth sky rel air -5 clear
elbow knee rel ankle -9 -7
elephant menthol unrel animal -9 -7
elevator gowns unrel escalator -7 -9
entrance door rel window -7 -9
envelope paper rel pencil clear -5
eye theatre unrel sight clear -5
face case unrel nose -5 clear
farm cow rel mild -5 clear
feather light rel pillow -9 -7
46
target prime semantic foil SNR_list1 SNR_list2
flour bread rel wheat -5 clear
flower petals rel garden -9 -7
flute effect unrel song -9 -7
fossil acoustic unrel ancient -7 -9
frog pond rel duck -7 -9
fur animal rel fox clear -5
garbage patent unrel rotten clear -5
garlic lagoon unrel pepper -5 clear
glass sharp rel pain -9 -7
glove dogs unrel soft -9 -7
goat salt unrel cold -7 -9
golf tennis rel court -7 -9
grain rice rel corn clear -5
grass meal unrel green clear -5
gym emphasis unrel run -5 clear
hair long rel short -5 clear
iron steel rel silver -5 clear
jacket retreat unrel winter -9 -7
kangaroo pocket rel camera -9 -7
keys door rel lock -7 -9
keys door rel lock -7 -9