Parallel processing of auditory and phonetic information in speech discrimination

Wood, Charles Cresson

doi:10.3758/bf03199292

Cited by 106 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This term has been applied to cases in which the amounts of interference on two orthogonal dimensions are unequalcases in which one of two orthogonally varied dimensions produces interference whereas the other does not (Garner, 1974, referring to Day & Wood, 1972, and Wood, 1974, and cases in which one of the dimensions produces greater interference than the other (Pomerantz & Sager, 1975). Apparent "asymmetric integrality" is not readily explicable by Garner's theory of two types of internal representations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A psychophysical approach to dimensional separability

Cheng

Pachella

1984

Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A psychophysical approach to dimensional separability

Cheng

Pachella

1984

Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Given the numerous recent studies suggesting that the processing of speech and nonspeech acoustic signals is subserved by a common set of auditory analyzers (e.g., Cutting & Rosner, 1974;Eimas & Miller, in press;Kuhl & Miller, 1975), it seems much more likely that a mutual asymmetric dependency is just one of many forms of dependency that exists within the auditory system. (Blechner et al, 1976;Pastore et al, 1976, Experiment 5;Wood, 1974) have shown an asymmetric interference effect and a redundancy gain. One explanation of this combination of effects is "that subjects have some degree of freedom about the kinds of processing that they use in different task conditions" (Blechner et aI., 1976, p. 259).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Inasmuch as our instructions for the correlated tasks did not emphasize the correlated nature of the stimuli, as they did in the Wood (1974) and Blechner et al (1976) studies, we replicated Experiment I with instructions that informed listeners about the nature of the stimuli and that further informed them "to try and use the correlation between the two dimensions to help you respond as quickly as you can." Despite this change, a true redundancy gain (or for that matter any form of correlated effect) failed to appear.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This form of dependency has also been found with two nonphonetic dimensions, e.g., pitch and intensity (Wood, 1975a). Asymmetric or unidirectional dependencies have been obtained when one dimension signaled a phonetic distinction (place of articulation) and the other signaled a nonphonetic dimension (pitch) (Wood, 1974), and when both dimensions were nonphonetic in nature (e.g., rise time and intensity) (Blechner, Day, & Cutting, 1976;and see Pastore, Ahroon, Puleo, Crimmins, Golowner, & Berger, 1976). Although it is not yet possible to specify the acoustic characteristics of the dimensions that lead to one form of dependency rather than another, it is clear that it is not related simply to the distinction that is often made between phonetic and nonphonetic aspects of acoustic information.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Asymmetric dependencies in processing phonetic features

Eimas

Tartter

Miller

et al. 1978

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A series of four experiments investigated the nature of the dependency relation that exists during the processing of the phonetic features of place and manner of articulation. A speeded classification paradigm was used in which listeners' classification times along these two dimensions were measured under three conditions of variation along the nontarget dimension: (1) no variation, (2) correlated variation, and (3) orthogonal variation. In all four studies, a mutual but asymmetric pattern of interference was found in the orthogonal conditions, in which the magnitude of the interference effect was greater when place of articulation was the target dimension than when manner was the target dimension. In addition, the discriminability of the manner values did not affect the pattern of interference effects. The results were discussed in terms of a concurrent-contingent model of parallel processing wherein it was assumed that feature decisions along either dimension are affected by feature value along the other dimension, but that decisions about place of articulation are more dependent on manner information than manner decisions are on place information.Contemporary theoretical approaches to the perception of speech at the phonetic (segmental) level have been concerned with a description of the processes or stages of analysis that intervene between the acoustic event and the final perception of phonetic segments, for example, the segmental unit [b] in the syllable [bal. At the very least, the assumption has been made (cf. Pisoni, 1975) that the acoustic signal undergoes a number of transformations (i.e., stages of analysis) which in effect reduce the amount of information in the signal and ultimately yield a set or matrix of distinctive phonetic feature values. These matrices of feature values define the individual segmental units and serve as the basis for perception at this level of linguistic analysis.There is considerable evidence available from a wide variety of experimental situations in support of the contention that the acoustic signal undergoes some form of distinctive feature analysis. For ex-

show abstract

“…For example, Day and Wood (1972a) and Wood (1974Wood ( ,_ 1975 found that irrelevant variation in a non linguistic dimension of a CV syllable (fundamental frequency) produced su bstantial interference with identitication of a linguistic dimension (the initial stop consonant). In contrast.…”

Section: Linguistic and Nonlinguistic Dimensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%