A Danish Nonsense Word Corpus for Phoneme Recognition Measurements

Nielsen, Jens Bo; Dau, Torsten

doi:10.3813/aaa.919299

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The discrimination task was composed of two lists containing 40 pairs of disyllabic-nonwords, selected from the nonword corpus published by Nielsen and Dau (2019). From the original material, C−/a/-C−/a/ nonwords starting with one of the 14 main initial phonemes for the Danish language (/p t k b d g m n l f v s r h /) were selected.…”

Section: Phonological Discrimination Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From the original material, C−/a/-C−/a/ nonwords starting with one of the 14 main initial phonemes for the Danish language (/p t k b d g m n l f v s r h /) were selected. The recordings selected had 100% speech intelligibility score reported in the original study by Nielsen and Dau (2019), for both first and second consonants. The present study focuses only on the first phoneme contrast.…”

Section: Phonological Discrimination Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The false alarm rate in the vocoded phonological discrimination task (Figure 2) suggests that perceiving two speakers as producing the same nonword was challenging in the degraded speech condition, although the material used in this study has been evaluated as not containing ambiguous phonemes in unprocessed speech (Nielsen and Dau, 2019). False alarms occur when pairs were mistakenly perceived as having a contrast when they did not contain a contrast (i.e., two different speakers producing the same word), revealing a failure to perceive stable signal characteristics during phoneme recognition.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Phonological discrimination and contrast detection in pupillometry

Chiossi,

Patou,

et al. 2023

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe perception of phonemes is guided by both low-level acoustic cues and high-level linguistic context. However, differentiating between these two types of processing can be challenging. In this study, we explore the utility of pupillometry as a tool to investigate both low- and high-level processing of phonological stimuli, with a particular focus on its ability to capture novelty detection and cognitive processing during speech perception.MethodsPupillometric traces were recorded from a sample of 22 Danish-speaking adults, with self-reported normal hearing, while performing two phonological-contrast perception tasks: a nonword discrimination task, which included minimal-pair combinations specific to the Danish language, and a nonword detection task involving the detection of phonologically modified words within sentences. The study explored the perception of contrasts in both unprocessed speech and degraded speech input, processed with a vocoder.ResultsNo difference in peak pupil dilation was observed when the contrast occurred between two isolated nonwords in the nonword discrimination task. For unprocessed speech, higher peak pupil dilations were measured when phonologically modified words were detected within a sentence compared to sentences without the nonwords. For vocoded speech, higher peak pupil dilation was observed for sentence stimuli, but not for the isolated nonwords, although performance decreased similarly for both tasks.ConclusionOur findings demonstrate the complexity of pupil dynamics in the presence of acoustic and phonological manipulation. Pupil responses seemed to reflect higher-level cognitive and lexical processing related to phonological perception rather than low-level perception of acoustic cues. However, the incorporation of multiple talkers in the stimuli, coupled with the relatively low task complexity, may have affected the pupil dilation.

show abstract

Section: Phonological Discrimination Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Phonological Discrimination Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation