Research

Lab publications (updated 3/30/26)

Asterisks indicate undergraduate and alumni co-authors.

• *Brown, V., *Holloway, A., *Toure, A., *Ali, S., *Alvarez, A., *Nyamao, T., *Lin, Y., *Hrebeniuk, O., Strand, J. (2026). The Dual-Task Costs of Audiovisual Benefit: Effects of Noise and “Native” Speaker Status. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 88. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-025-03206-3
• *Wennberg, J., *Dillman-Hasso, N., *Brown, V., Strand, J. (2025). Impaired performance in noise: Disentangling listening effort from the irrelevant speech effect. Collabra: Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.147319.
• Strand, J., *Brown, V., *Sewell, K., *Lin, Y., *Lefkowitz, E., *Saksena, C. (2024). Assessing the effects of “native speaker” status on classic findings in speech research. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001640
• *Brown, V., *Sewell, K., *Villanueva, J., Strand, J. (2024). Noisy speech impairs retention of previously-heard information only at short time scales. Memory & Cognition. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-024-01583-y
• *Sewell, K., *Brown, V., *Farwell, G., *Rogers, M, *Zhang, X., Strand, J. (2023) The effects of temporal cues, point-light displays, and faces on speech identification and listening effort. PLoS ONE 18(11): e0290826. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290826
• Strand, J. & *Brown, V. (2023). Spread the word: Enhancing replicability of speech research through stimulus sharing. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research : JSLHR, 66(6), 1967–1976. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_JSLHR-22-00267.
• Strand, J.  (2023). Error Tight: Exercises for lab groups to prevent research mistakes. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000547
• *Brown, V. & Strand, J.  (2022). Preregistration: Practical considerations for speech, language, and hearing research. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research : JSLHR, 66(6), 1889–1898. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_JSLHR-22-00317
• Wilbiks, J., Strand, J., & *Brown, V. A. (2022). Speech and non-speech measures of audiovisual integration are not correlated. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 84, 1809–1819. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-022-02517-z
• *Brown, V., *Dillman-Hasso, N., *Li, Z, *Ray, L., *Mamantov, E., Van Engen, K., Strand, J. (2022). Revisiting the Target-Masker Linguistic Similarity Hypothesis. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 84, 1772–1787. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-022-02486-3
• Strand, J., *Ray, L., *Dillman-Hasso, N., *Villanueva, J., *Brown, V., (2021). Understanding Speech amid the Jingle and Jangle: Recommendations for Improving Measurement Practices in Listening Effort Research. Auditory Perception & Cognition, 3(4),169–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/25742442.2021.1903293
• *Brown, V. A., Fox, N. P., & Strand, J. F. (2022). “Where are the . . . Fixations?”: Grammatical number cues guide anticipatory fixations to upcoming referents and reduce lexical competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 48(5), 643–657. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001019
• *Guang, C., *Lefkowitz, E., *Dillman-Hasso, N., *Brown, V., Strand, J. (2021). Recall of Speech is Impaired by Subsequent Masking Noise: A Replication of Rabbitt (1968) Experiment 2. Auditory Perception & Cognition, 3(3), 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/25742442.2021.1896908
• Rohrer, J., Tierney, W., Uhlmann, E. L., DeBruine, L. M., Heyman, T., Jones, B., … Strand, J., … & Lucas, R. E. (2021). Putting the self in self-correction: Findings from the Loss-of-Confidence Project. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1255-1269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620964106
• *Brown, V., McLaughlin, D., Strand, J., & Van Engen, K. (2020). Rapid adaptation to fully intelligible nonnative-accented speech reduces listening effort. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(9), 1431-1443. doi.org/10.1177/1747021820916726.
• Strand, J., *Brown, V., Barbour, D. (2020). Talking points: A modulating circle increases listening effort without improving speech recognition in younger adults. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 27, 536–543. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01713-y
• *Brown, V., & Strand, J. (2019). About Face: Seeing the Talker Improves Spoken Word Recognition but Increases Listening Effort. Journal of Cognition, 2(1), 44. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.89
• *Brown, V., & Strand, J. (2019). “Paying” attention to audiovisual stimuli: Do incongruent stimuli incur greater costs? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 81, 1743–1756. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01772-x
• Strand, J., & *Brown, V. (2019). Publishing open, reproducible research with undergraduates. Frontiers in Educational Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00564
• Liben-Nowell., D., Strand, J., Sharp, A, Woods., K., Wexler, T. (2019). The danger of testing effects through selecting controlled subsets, with applications to spoken-word recognition. Journal of Cognition, 2(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.51
• *Brown, V., & Strand, J. (2018). Noise increases listening effort in normal-hearing young adults, regardless of working memory capacity. Journal of Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 34(5), 628–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1562084
• *Brown, V., *Chen, X., *Hedayati, M., *Sikes, C., Strand, J., *Wilson, T., & Liben-Nowell, D. (2018). Node ordering for rescalable network summarization (or, the apparent magic of word frequency and age of acquisition in the lexicon). In: Aiello, L., Cherifi, C., Cherifi, H., Lambiotte, R., Lió, P., Rocha, L. (eds) Complex Networks and Their Applications VII. COMPLEX NETWORKS 2018. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 812. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05411-3_6
• *Brown, V., *Hedayati, M., *Zanger, A., *Mayn, S., *Ray, L., *Dillman-Hasso, N., Strand, J. (2018). What accounts for individual differences in susceptibility to the McGurk effect? PLoS ONE, 13(11): e0207160. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207160
• Strand, J., *Brown, V., *Merchant, M., *Brown, H., *Smith, J. (2018). Measuring Listening Effort: Convergent validity, sensitivity, and links with individual difference variables. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, JSLHR, 61(6), 1463–1486. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR-H-17-0257
• Strand, J., *Brown, V., *Brown, H., & *Berg, J. (2017). Keep listening: Grammatical context reduces but does not eliminate activation of unexpected words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 44(6), 962–973. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000488
• Strand, J., & Liben-Nowell, D. (2016). Making long-distance relationships work: Quantifying lexical competition with Hidden Markov Models. Journal of Memory and Language, 90, 88–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.007
• Gahl, S., & Strand, J. (2016). Many neighborhoods: Phonological and perceptual neighborhood density in lexical production and perception. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 162–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.12.006 
• *Slote, J., & Strand, J. (2015). Conducting spoken word recognition research online: Validation and a new timing method. Behavior Research Methods 48, 553–566. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0599-7
• Strand., J., *Cooperman, A., *Rowe, J., & *Simenstad A. (2014) Individual differences in susceptibility to the McGurk effect: Links with lipreading and detecting audiovisual incongruity. Journal of Speech, Language, & Hearing Research: JSLHR, 57(6), 2322–2331. https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_JSLHR-H-14-0059
• Strand, J. , *Simenstad, A., *Cooperman, A., *Rowe, J. (2014). Grammatical context constrains lexical activation during  spoken word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 42, 676-687. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0378-6
• Strand, J. (2014). Phi-square Lexical Competition Database (Phi-Lex): An online tool for quantifying auditory and visual lexical competition. Behavior Research Methods, 46(1), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0356-8
• Strand, J., & Sommers, M. (2011). Sizing up the competition: Quantifying the influence of the mental lexicon on spoken word identification. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(3), 1663-1672. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3613930
• Feld, J., & Sommers, M. (2011). There goes the neighborhood: Lipreading and the mental lexicon.  Speech Communication, 53(2), 220-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2010.09.003
• Feld, J., & Sommers, M. (2009).  Lipreading, processing speed, and working memory in younger & older adults.Journal of Speech, Language, & Hearing Research, 52, 1555-1565.

Note: some publications appear under a former name, Julia Feld

Select lab presentations

• Talk at Psychonomics 2020: Where Are the…Fixations?”: Listeners Use Grammatical Number Cues to Anticipate Upcoming Referents and Reduce Lexical Search Space. Violet A. Brown, Neal P. Fox, Julia F. Strand
• Poster at Psychonomics 2020. Lipreading in Noise: Cross-Modal Analysis of the Target-Masker Linguistic Similarity Hypothesis. Violet A. Brown, Naseem H. Dillman-Hasso, ZhaoBin Li, Lucia Ray, Ellen Mamantov, Kristin J. Van Engen, Julia F. Strand