Coarticulation is largely planned

Whalen, D. H.

doi:10.1016/s0095-4470(19)30356-0

Cited by 171 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

110

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The phenomenon of coarticulation, i.e., that phoneme production is affected by planning and production of neighboring phonemes, has long been established using kinematic, physiologic (EMG), and acoustic methods (Denby et al, 2010;Kent, 1977;Magen, 1997;Öhman, 1966;Schultz and Wand, 2010;Whalen, 1990). Our results showing discrimination of intraword phoneme position and differences in allophone encoding confirm the existence of phoneme coarticulation in cortical activity as well.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

“…At its most basic level, speech is produced by coordinated movements of the vocal tract (e.g., lips, tongue, velum, and larynx), but it is not certain exactly how these movements are planned. For example, during speech planning, phonemes are coarticulated-the articulatory gestures that comprise a given phoneme are modified based on neighboring phonemes in the uttered word or phrase (Whalen, 1990). While the dynamic properties of these gestures, similar to kinematics, have been extensively studied (Bocquelet et al, 2016;Bouchard et al, 2016;Carey and McGettigan, 2016;Fabre et al, 2015;Nam et al, 2010;Proctor et al, 2013;Westbury, 1990), there is no direct evidence of gestural representations in the brain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differential Representation of Articulatory Gestures and Phonemes in Motor, Premotor, and Inferior Frontal Cortices

Mugler¹,

Tate

Livescu

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1Speech is a critical form of human communication and is central to our daily lives. Yet, despite decades 2 of study, an understanding of the fundamental neural control of speech production remains incomplete. 3Current theories model speech production as a hierarchy from sentences and phrases down to words, 4 syllables, speech sounds (phonemes) and the movements of speech articulator muscles used to produce 5 these sounds (articulatory gestures). Here, we investigate the cortical representation of articulatory 6 gestures and phonemes in speech motor, premotor, and inferior frontal cortices. Our results indicate 7 that primary motor and premotor areas represent gestures to a greater extent than phonemes, while 8 inferior frontal cortex represents both gestures and phonemes. These findings suggest that the cortical 9 control of speech production shares a common representation with that of other types of movement,

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential Representation of Articulatory Gestures and Phonemes in Motor, Premotor, and Inferior Frontal Cortices

Mugler¹,

Tate

Livescu

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is not yet quite clear from the results of the present study or from those of Wright and Kerswill (1989), how'ever, whether the less than perfect recovery of an underly'ing form is due to listener's incomplete recovery of the speaker's intention or rather due to the speaker's somewhat ambiguous production of the intended form. In other words, either the speaker has intended to fully realize an underlying form by coproducing it with adjacent phonetic units (Fowler, 1981;Liberman and Mattingly, 1985',; Whalen, 1990), and it is the listener who sometimes fails to fully recover the coarticulated underlying form; or it is the speaker who has reduced his effort in trying to fully realize the underlying form in fluent speech, especially when that particular underlying form is in a conflicting phonetic context, and the listener's seemingly imperfect recovery is actually a full recovery of a form that has been intended to be less lucid for some reason, because listeners actually perceive what talkers do (Fowler, 1987). Either of the above two being the case, the limit of purely phonetic perception needs to be recognized.…”

Section: Ill General Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Production and perception of coarticulated tones

1994

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

155

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present study, the distinctive tones of Mandarin were found to coarticulate with adjacent tones in running speech. However, the amount of deviation of a tone from its canonical form due to coarticulation varied depending on the nature of the tonal context. In a context where adjacent tonal values agree (a "compatible" context), the deviation was relatively small. In a context where adjacent tonal values disagree (a "conflicting" context), the deviation was much greater, sometimes even to the extent of changing the direction of a dynamic tone. To examine the perception of coarticulated tones, naturally produced words and phrases were used as stimuli for tone identification. However, their semantic information was removed through waveform editing while all the tonal information contained in the signal remained intact. Identification of tones in the compatible context was highly accurate with or without the original tonal context. Tonal identification for the conflicting context remained accurate only when the tones were presented with the original tonal context. Without the original context, i.e., in isolation, correct tone identification dropped below chance. When the original tonal context was altered, listeners compensated for the altered context as if it had been there originally. It thus seems that, in tone perception, listeners compensate for variations due to coarticulation. Nevertheless, even with the presence of the original context, perceptual identification was better for the compatible context than for the conflicting context, indicating that variation due to coarticulation is not always completely compensated for by listeners.

show abstract

“…If coarticulation is not obligatory, its manifestation should be sensitive to available information. The earliest evidence for this claim was presented by Whalen (1990). Speakers read aloud disyllabic nonsense words (e.g., “abu”).…”

Section: Coarticulation Re‐revisitedmentioning

confidence: 99%