Early recognition of speech

Remez, Robert E.; Thomas, Emily F.

doi:10.1002/wcs.1213

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 54 publications

(43 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, through proper instruction, listeners can direct attention to phonetic information in SWS that is sufficient to support perception of the linguistic message (Remez, Rubin, & Pisoni, 1983;Remez, Rubin, Pisoni, & Carrell, 1981). As proposed by Remez and Thomas (2013), while the vocal timbre of natural speech directs listeners' attention to modulations caused by articulatory gestures, which engages a perceptual organization of the signal into a speech stream, SWS is not sufficient to summon such attentional setting, usually requiring further information, such as instructions. Interestingly, hearing SWS as speech versus non-speech has been found to involve functionally distinct perceptual processes and brain networks (Dehaene-Lambertz, 2005;Khoshkhoo, Leonard, Mesgarani, & Chang, 2018; see also Baart, Stekelenburg, & Vroomen, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-modal correspondences in sine wave: Speech versus non-speech modes

Silva

Bellini-Leite

2019

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study aimed to investigate whether or not the so-called "bouba-kiki" effect is mediated by speech-specific representations. Sine-wave versions of naturally produced pseudowords were used as auditory stimuli in an implicit association task (IAT) and an explicit cross-modal matching (CMM) task to examine cross-modal shape-sound correspondences. A group of participants trained to hear the sine-wave stimuli as speech was compared to a group that heard them as non-speech sounds. Sound-shape correspondence effects were observed in both groups and tasks, indicating that speech-specific processing is not fundamental to the "bouba-kiki" phenomenon. Effects were similar across groups in the IAT, while in the CMM task the speechmode group showed a stronger effect compared with the non-speech group. This indicates that, while both tasks reflect auditoryvisual associations, only the CMM task is additionally sensitive to associations involving speech-specific representations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-modal correspondences in sine wave: Speech versus non-speech modes

Silva

Bellini-Leite

2019

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although some recent studies (for instance, Zevin, Yang, Skipper, & McCandliss, 2010) have dubiously presumed an equivalence of deliberate attention and passive exposure to speech, this premise is inconsistent with findings that reveal indiscriminate perceptual organization — streaming, or grouping — without attention (for example, Carlyon, Cusack, Foxton, & Robertson, 2001). Speech perception requires listening; the mere transduction of speech samples by an auditory system is insufficient (see Remez & Thomas, 2013). …”

Section: Points Of Analogymentioning

confidence: 99%

Analogy and disanalogy in production and perception of speech

Remez

2014

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A varied psychological vocabulary now describes the cognitive and social conditions of language production, the ultimate result of which is the mechanical action of vocal musculature in spoken expression. Following the logic of the speech chain, descriptions of production have often exhibited a clear analogy to accounts of perception. This reciprocality is especially evident in explanations that rely on reafference to control production, on articulation to inform perception, and on strict parity between produced and perceived form to provide invariance in the relation between abstract linguistic objects and observed expression. However, a causal account of production and perception cannot derive solely from this hopeful analogy. Despite sharing of abstract linguistic representations, the control functions in production and perception as well as the constraints on their use stand in fundamental disanalogy. This is readily seen in the different adaptive challenges to production — to speak in a single voice — and perception — to resolve familiar linguistic properties in any voice. This acknowledgment sets descriptive and theoretical challenges that break the symmetry of production and perception. As a consequence, this recognition dislodges an old impasse between the psychoacoustic and motoric accounts in the regulation of production and perception.

show abstract

“…In this conceptualization, perception of speech is a function devoted to the identification of phonemes by indifference to the subphonemic variation due to coarticulation. However, more recent studies have viewed production of speech as a multiplex bottleneck in which the acoustic phonetic form reflects a talker’s age, vitality, affect, motivation, regional origin, idiolect, stylistic habits and history of dental work in addition to canonical phonemes (reviewed by Remez & Thomas, 2013). From this perspective, coarticulation is a single cause among many that drive phonetic form to depart from invariant phonemic expression.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short-term perceptual tuning to talker characteristics

Remez

Thomas

Crank

et al. 2018

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When a listener encounters an unfamiliar talker, the ensuing perceptual accommodation to the unique characteristics of the talker has two aspects: (1) the listener assesses acoustic characteristics of speech to resolve the properties of the talker’s sound production; and, (2) the listener appraises the talker’s idiolect, subphonemic phonetic properties that compose the finest grain of linguistic production. A new study controlled a listener’s exposure to determine whether the perceptual benefit rests on specific segmental experience. Effects of sentence exposure were measured using a spoken word identification task of Easy words (likely words drawn from sparse neighborhoods of less likely words) and Hard words (less likely words drawn from dense neighborhoods of more likely words). Recognition of words was facilitated by exposure to voiced obstruent consonants. Overall, these findings indicate that talker-specific perceptual tuning might depend more on exposure to phonemically marked consonants than to exposure distributed across the phoneme inventory.

show abstract

Early recognition of speech

Cited by 10 publications

References 54 publications

Cross-modal correspondences in sine wave: Speech versus non-speech modes

Cross-modal correspondences in sine wave: Speech versus non-speech modes

Analogy and disanalogy in production and perception of speech

Short-term perceptual tuning to talker characteristics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About