Effects of native language on compensation for coarticulation

Kang, Shinae; Johnson, Keith; Finley, Gregory

doi:10.1016/j.specom.2015.12.005

Cited by 20 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results thus suggest once again that what matters in perceptual learning is auditory overlap rather than abstract featural overlap. They hence indicate that abstract phonological features are unlikely to be an important aspect of pre-lexical processing (see also Ettlinger & Johnson, 2009;Kang, Johnson, & Finley, 2016).…”

Section: Why or Why Not Phonemesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Allophones, not phonemes in spoken-word recognition

Mitterer

Reinisch

McQueen

2018

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

•Pre-lexical representations in speech perception were probed with selective adaptation • Allophonic and phoneme overlap between adaptors and test stimuli were varied • Only allophonic overlap led to selective adaptation • Results argue for the use of allophones and not phonemes in speech perceptionWhat are the phonological representations that listeners use to map information about the segmental content of speech onto the mental lexicon during spoken-word recognition? Recent evidence from perceptual-learning paradigms seems to support (context-dependent) allophones as the basic representational units in spoken-word recognition. But recent evidence from a selective-adaptation paradigm seems to suggest that context-independent phonemes also play a role. We present three experiments using selective adaptation that constitute strong tests of these representational hypotheses.In Experiment 1, we tested generalization of selective adaptation using different allophones of Dutch /r/ and /l/ -a case where generalization has not been found with perceptual learning. In Experiments 2 and 3, we tested generalization of selective adaptation using German back fricatives in which allophonic and phonemic identity were varied orthogonally. In all three experiments, selective adaptation was observed only if adaptors and test stimuli shared allophones. Phonemic identity, in contrast, was neither necessary nor sufficient for generalization of selective adaptation to occur. These findings and other recent data using the perceptuallearning paradigm suggest that pre-lexical processing during spoken-word recognition is based on allophones, and not on context-independent phonemes.

show abstract

Section: Why or Why Not Phonemesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Allophones, not phonemes in spoken-word recognition

Mitterer

Reinisch

McQueen

2018

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The three main misunderstandings outlined here are still being made. Examples can still be found for perfection (Perkell, 2012, p. 383), signal irrelevance (Schwartz, Basirat, Ménard, & Sato, 2012, p. 339), and the non-utility of “direct” (Kang, Johnson, & Finley, 2016, p. 88). Pointing out these misunderstandings does not guarantee that Fowler’s position is correct.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Direct Perceptions of Carol Fowler's Theoretical Perspective

Whalen

2016

Ecological Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carol Fowler has had a tremendous impact on the field of speech perception, in part by having people disagree with her. The disagreements arise, as they often do, from two incompatible sources: Her positions are often misunderstood and thus “disagreed” with only on the surface, and her positions are rejected because they challenge deeply held, intuitively appealing positions, without being shown to be wrong. The misunderstandings center largely on the assertion that perception is “direct.” This is often taken to mean that we have access to the speaker’s vocal tract by some means other than the (largely acoustic) speech signal, when, in fact, it asserts that the signal is sufficient to directly specify that production. It is unclear why this misunderstanding persists; while there are still issues to be resolved in this regard, the stance is clear. The challenge to “acoustic” theories of speech perception remains, and thus direct perception is still controversial, as it seems that acoustic theories are held by a majority of researchers. Decades’ worth of evidence showing the lack of usefulness of purely acoustic properties and the coherence gained by a production perspective have not changed this situation. Some attempts at combining the two perspectives have emerged, but they largely miss the Gibsonian challenge that Fowler has espoused: Perception of speech is direct. It looks as though it will take some further decades of research and discussion to fully explore her position.

show abstract

“…These results imply that language background plays no role in spectral context effects, but this might only be true when all languages share the speech sound contrast under study (as was the case in Sjerps & Smiljanic, ). Kang, Johnson, and Finley () asked native English and French listeners to categorize the initial consonant in fricative‐vowel syllables. Fricative categorization was biased by the following vowel context (/a/ produced more /ʃ/ responses and /u/ produced more /s/ responses, replicating Mann & Repp, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acoustic context effects in speech perception

Stilp

2019

WIRES Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The extreme acoustic variability of speech is well established, which makes the proficiency of human speech perception all the more impressive. Speech perception, like perception in any modality, is relative to context, and this provides a means to normalize the acoustic variability in the speech signal. Acoustic context effects in speech perception have been widely documented, but a clear understanding of how these effects relate to each other across stimuli, timescales, and acoustic domains is lacking. Here we review the influences that spectral context, temporal context, and spectrotemporal context have on speech perception. Studies are organized in terms of whether the context precedes the target (forward effects) or follows it (backward effects), and whether the context is adjacent to the target (proximal) or temporally removed from it (distal). Special cases where proximal and distal contexts have competing influences on perception are also considered. Across studies, a common theme emerges: acoustic differences between contexts and targets are perceptually magnified, producing contrast effects that facilitate perception of target sounds and words. This indicates enhanced sensitivity to changes in the acoustic environment, which maximizes the amount of potential information that can be transmitted to the perceiver. This article is categorized under: Linguistics > Language in Mind and Brain Psychology > Perception and Psychophysics

show abstract

Effects of native language on compensation for coarticulation

Cited by 20 publications

References 59 publications

Allophones, not phonemes in spoken-word recognition

Allophones, not phonemes in spoken-word recognition

Direct Perceptions of Carol Fowler's Theoretical Perspective

Acoustic context effects in speech perception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About