Are selective adaptation and contrast effects really distinct?

Diehl, Randy L.; Kluender, Keith R.; Parker, Ellen M.

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.11.2.209

Cited by 25 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is notable that when the results of randomized presentation were examined for local sequential effects (Tuller et a!., 1994) by computing the conditional probability ofjudging each stimulus as a member of the same category as that of the immediately preceding stimulus and data were averaged across subjects, no systematic contrast or assimilative effects were evident. These data differed from those previously reported (see, e.g., Diehl, Elman, & McCusker, 1978;Diehl, Kluender, & Parker, 1985;Diehl et aI., 1980;Macmillan, Goldberg, & Braida, 1988), most likely because in our analysis the biasing context was drawn from the entire range of stimuli, not a restricted set.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

Evaluation of a dynamical model of speech perception

Case

Tuller

Ding

et al. 1995

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous work (Tuller, Case, Ding, & Kelso, 1994) has revealed signature properties of nonlinear dynamical systems in how people categorize speech sounds. The data were modeled by using a twowell potential function that deformed with stimulus properties and was sensitive to context. Here we evaluate one prediction of the model-namely, that the rate of change of the potential's slope should increase when the category is repeatedly perceived. Judged goodness of category membership was used as an index of the slope of the potential. Stimuli from a "say"-"stay" continuum were presented with gap duration changing sequentially throughout the range from 0 to 76 to 0 msec, or from 76 to oto 76 msec. Subjects identified each token as either "say" or "stay" and rated how good an exemplar it was of the identified category. As predicted, the same physical stimulus presented at the end of a sequence was judged a better exemplar of the category than was the identical stimulus presented at the beginning of the sequence. In contrast, stimuli presented twice near the middle of a sequence with few (or no) stimuli between them, as well as stimuli presented with an intervening random set, showed no such differences. These results confirm the hypothesis of a context-sensitive dynamical representation underlying speech.A basic issue in speech perception concerns how people sort a continuously varying acoustic signal into appropriate phonemic categories in a manner that is at once stable under acoustic variation and flexible in changing contexts. In a seminal study of the perceptual stability of speech, Liberman, Harris, Hoffman, and Griffith (1957) demonstrated the difficulty listeners have in discriminating between acoustic stimuli that are categorized as the same speech segment-the phenomenon known as categorical perception. A large body of work has followed and shown, among other things, that the assignment of an acoustic signal to a given category is flexible, adjusting with such factors as phonetic context, speaking rate, and linguistic experience (see Repp & Liberman, 1987, for a review). Typical studies involve a stimulus continuum that is created by systematically manipulating an acoustic variable. The stimuli from the continuum are randomized and presented to listeners for identification. When the continuum involves changes in consonant perception, subjects usually judge stimuli as belonging to the same consonantal category across relatively large variations of the acoustic parameter. Such stably perceived ranges are separated by a relatively narrow range of the acoustic parameter for which stimuli are sometimes heard as belonging to one category and sometimes

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

Evaluation of a dynamical model of speech perception

Case

Tuller

Ding

et al. 1995

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the current experiment, the initial prolonged adaptation period is skipped and listeners instead hear sequences of either one or five seconds of initial motion adaptation, followed by probe stimuli presented after different time delays. Regarding the chosen adaptor durations, it is possible that the aMAE may emerge after one second of motion adaptation ͑e.g., a single pass of a one second duration moving adaptor͒, as was discovered by Diehl et al ͑1985͒. In this case, the aMAE for one second of adaptation should be as strong as for five seconds; alternatively, the longer adaptation period may create a significantly larger bias in judgments of subsequent moving test stimuli, suggesting a more linear growth of the aftereffect with the amount of motion exposure.…”

Section: E the Present Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…At the time, speech perception was thought to be mediated by specialized detectors which could be experimentally adapted by the repeated presentation of their corresponding phonemic features. Diehl et al ͑1985͒, however, showed that many of these effects could be created after a single presentation of the ''adapting'' phoneme and thus argued that it was the contrastive context of the adaptor and test pairing that created the shift rather than the fatiguing of dedicated phonemic feature detectors. In an interesting parallel to McAlpine and colleagues' study, Diehl, et al also showed that inserting pauses between each repetition of the stimulus during the adaptation period altered the resulting judgments of the subsequent test stimuli.…”

Section: Contrast Explanations Of Aftereffectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The temporal growth and decay of the auditory motion aftereffect

Neelon

Jenison

2004

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present work investigated the temporal tuning of the auditory motion aftereffect (aMAE) by measuring the time course of adaptation and recovery to auditory motion exposure. On every trial, listeners were first exposed to a broadband, horizontally moving sound source for either 1 or 5 seconds, then presented moving test stimuli after delays of 0, 2/3, or 1 2/3 seconds. All stimuli were synthesized from head related transfer functions recorded for each participant. One second of motion exposure (i.e., a single pass of the moving source) produced clearly measurable aMAEs which generally decayed monotonically after adaptation ended, while five seconds exposure produced stronger aftereffects that remained largely unattenuated across test delays. These differences may imply two components to the aMAE: a short time-constant motion illusion and a longer time-constant response bias. Finally, aftereffects were produced only by adaptor movement toward but not away from listener midline. This aftereffect asymmetry may also be a consequence of brief adaptation times and reflect initial neural response to auditory motion in primate auditory cortex.

show abstract

“…Diehl and his colleagues consider their results to support an adaptation-level theory interpretation, another nondetection-theoretic approach, and one that is consistent with a response-bias interpretation. (For ongoing controversy about the nature of selective adaptation, see Sawusch and Jusczyk, 1981;Sawusch and Nusbaum, 1983;Sawusch and Mullennix, 1985;Diehl et al, 1985a;Diehl et al, 1985b). It is interesting to note, therefore, that an attempt to separate sensitivity from bias in the selective adaptation paradigm (Elman, 1979) located the effect in response bias.…”

Section: Effects Of Standardsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Resolution for speech sounds: Basic sensitivity and context memory on vowel and consonant continua

Macmillan

Goldberg

Braida

1988

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discrimination and identification experiments were performed for a vowel continuum (/i/-/I/-/e/)and two consonant continua (/ba/-/pa/and/ba/-/da/-/ga/). The results were interpreted in terms of a generalization of a theory of intensity resolution [N. I. Durlach and L. D. Braida, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 46, 372-383 (1969) ] that makes precise the distinction between basic sensitivity (sensory-based resolution) and context coding (labeling processes). On the vowel continuum, basic sensitivity increased gradually across the range, whereas, for both consonant continua, sensitivity peaked between phonetic categories. All speech continua were found to have small ranges (measured in jnd's); context memory was good, and better for consonants than for vowels. The stimuli that could be labeled most reliably were near the category boundaries on the vowel continuum, but near good phonetic exemplars for consonants. Introduction of a standard in identification primarily altered response bias, not sensitivity.

show abstract

Are selective adaptation and contrast effects really distinct?

Cited by 25 publications

References 36 publications

Evaluation of a dynamical model of speech perception

Evaluation of a dynamical model of speech perception

The temporal growth and decay of the auditory motion aftereffect

Resolution for speech sounds: Basic sensitivity and context memory on vowel and consonant continua

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About