Literature DB >> 15532664

The distinctness of speakers' productions of vowel contrasts is related to their discrimination of the contrasts.

Joseph S Perkell1, Frank H Guenther, Harlan Lane, Melanie L Matthies, Ellen Stockmann, Mark Tiede, Majid Zandipour.   

Abstract

This study addresses the hypothesis that the more accurately a speaker discriminates a vowel contrast, the more distinctly the speaker produces that contrast. Measures of speech production and perception were collected from 19 young adult speakers of American English. In the production experiment, speakers repeated the words cod, cud, who'd, and hood in a carrier phrase at normal, clear, and fast rates. Articulatory movements and the associated acoustic signal were recorded, yielding measures of contrast distance between /a/ and /[see text for symbol]/ and between /u/ and /[see text for symbol]/. In the discrimination experiment, sets of seven natural-sounding stimuli ranging from cod to cud and who'd to hood were synthesized, based on productions by one male and one female speaker. The continua were then presented to each of the 19 speakers in labeling and discrimination tasks. Consistent with the hypothesis, speakers with discrimination scores above the median produced greater acoustic contrasts than speakers with discrimination scores at or below the median. Such a relation between speech production and perception is compatible with a model of speech production in which articulatory movements for vowels are planned primarily in auditory space.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15532664     DOI: 10.1121/1.1787524

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  38 in total

1.  Movement goals and feedback and feedforward control mechanisms in speech production.

Authors:  Joseph S Perkell
Journal:  J Neurolinguistics       Date:  2010-03-26       Impact factor: 1.710

2.  Phonetic enhancement of sibilants in infant-directed speech.

Authors:  Alejandrina Cristià
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  An Optimal Set of Flesh Points on Tongue and Lips for Speech-Movement Classification.

Authors:  Jun Wang; Ashok Samal; Panying Rong; Jordan R Green
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  Perception and production of /r/ allophones improve with hearing from a cochlear implant.

Authors:  Melanie L Matthies; Frank H Guenther; Margaret Denny; Joseph S Perkell; Ellen Burton; Jennell Vick; Harlan Lane; Mark Tiede; Majid Zandipour
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Seeking predictions from a predictive framework.

Authors:  T Florian Jaeger; Victor Ferreira
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2013-06-24       Impact factor: 12.579

6.  Auditory plasticity and speech motor learning.

Authors:  Sazzad M Nasir; David J Ostry
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-11-02       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Probing the independence of formant control using altered auditory feedback.

Authors:  Ewen N MacDonald; David W Purcell; Kevin G Munhall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Effects of real-time cochlear implant simulation on speech production.

Authors:  Elizabeth D Casserly
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Feedforward and feedback control in apraxia of speech: effects of noise masking on vowel production.

Authors:  Edwin Maas; Marja-Liisa Mailend; Frank H Guenther
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  Individual differences in categorical perception of speech: Cue weighting and executive function.

Authors:  Eun Jong Kong; Jan Edwards
Journal:  J Phon       Date:  2016-09-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.