Literature DB >> 16158659

Loudness predicts prominence: fundamental frequency lends little.

G Kochanski1, E Grabe, J Coleman, B Rosner.   

Abstract

We explored a database covering seven dialects of British and Irish English and three different styles of speech to find acoustic correlates of prominence. We built classifiers, trained the classifiers on human prominence/nonprominence judgments, and then evaluated how well they behaved. The classifiers operate on 452 ms windows centered on syllables, using different acoustic measures. By comparing the performance of classifiers based on different measures, we can learn how prominence is expressed in speech. Contrary to textbooks and common assumption, fundamental frequency (f0) played a minor role in distinguishing prominent syllables from the rest of the utterance. Instead, speakers primarily marked prominence with patterns of loudness and duration. Two other acoustic measures that we examined also played a minor role, comparable to f0. All dialects and speaking styles studied here share a common definition of prominence. The result is robust to differences in labeling practice and the dialect of the labeler.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16158659     DOI: 10.1121/1.1923349

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


  28 in total

1.  An Acoustic Measure for Word Prominence in Spontaneous Speech.

Authors:  Dagen Wang; Shrikanth Narayanan
Journal:  IEEE Trans Audio Speech Lang Process       Date:  2007-02-01

2.  Lexical and phrasal prominence patterns in school-aged children's speech.

Authors:  Irina A Shport; Melissa A Redford
Journal:  J Child Lang       Date:  2013-09-05

3.  Amplitude fluctuations in a masker influence lexical segmentation in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Trevor T Perry; Bomjun J Kwon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Speech rhythm: a metaphor?

Authors:  Francis Nolan; Hae-Sung Jeon
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2014-12-19       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  Responses to Intensity-Shifted Auditory Feedback During Running Speech.

Authors:  Rupal Patel; Kevin J Reilly; Erin Archibald; Shanqing Cai; Frank H Guenther
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 2.297

6.  Temporal regularity in speech perception: Is regularity beneficial or deleterious?

Authors:  Eveline Geiser; Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel
Journal:  Proc Meet Acoust       Date:  2012-04

7.  Prosodic adaptations to pitch perturbation in running speech.

Authors:  Rupal Patel; Caroline Niziolek; Kevin Reilly; Frank H Guenther
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2010-12-20       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  Organizing syllables into groups - Evidence from F0 and duration patterns in Mandarin.

Authors:  Yi Xu; Maolin Wang
Journal:  J Phon       Date:  2009-10

9.  Reduction in Prosodic Prominence Predicts Speakers' Recall: Implications for Theories of Prosody.

Authors:  Scott H Fraundorf; Duane G Watson; Aaron S Benjamin
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2014-09-24       Impact factor: 2.331

10.  Is relative pitch specific to pitch?

Authors:  Josh H McDermott; Andriana J Lehr; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2008-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.