Literature DB >> 17469975

Acoustic differences, listener expectations, and the perceptual accommodation of talker variability.

James S Magnuson1, Howard C Nusbaum.   

Abstract

Two talkers' productions of the same phoneme may be quite different acoustically, whereas their productions of different speech sounds may be virtually identical. Despite this lack of invariance in the relationship between the speech signal and linguistic categories, listeners experience phonetic constancy across a wide range of talkers, speaking styles, linguistic contexts, and acoustic environments. The authors present evidence that perceptual sensitivity to talker variability involves an active cognitive mechanism: Listeners expecting to hear 2 different talkers differing only slightly in average pitch showed performance costs typical of adjusting to talker variability, whereas listeners hearing the same materials but expecting a single talker or given no special instructions did not show these performance costs. The authors discuss the implications for understanding phonetic constancy despite variability between talkers (and other sources of variability) and for theories of speech perception. The results provide further evidence for active, controlled processing in real-time speech perception and are consistent with a model of talker normalization that involves contextual tuning.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17469975     DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.33.2.391

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  58 in total

1.  Effects of cross-language voice training on speech perception: whose familiar voices are more intelligible?

Authors:  Susannah V Levi; Stephen J Winters; David B Pisoni
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Eye movements reveal fast, voice-specific priming.

Authors:  Megan H Papesh; Stephen D Goldinger; Michael C Hout
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2016-01-04

3.  Poor phonetic perceivers are affected by cognitive load when resolving talker variability.

Authors:  Mark Antoniou; Patrick C M Wong
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Varying irrelevant phonetic features hinders learning of the feature being trained.

Authors:  Mark Antoniou; Patrick C M Wong
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Contingent categorization in speech perception.

Authors:  Keith S Apfelbaum; Natasha Bullock-Rest; Ariane E Rhone; Allard Jongman; Bob McMurray
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.331

6.  Time and information in perceptual adaptation to speech.

Authors:  Ja Young Choi; Tyler K Perrachione
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2019-06-21

7.  Variability of articulator positions and formants across nine English vowels.

Authors:  D H Whalen; Wei-Rong Chen; Mark K Tiede; Hosung Nam
Journal:  J Phon       Date:  2018-02-23

8.  Zebra finches exhibit speaker-independent phonetic perception of human speech.

Authors:  Verena R Ohms; Arike Gill; Caroline A A Van Heijningen; Gabriel J L Beckers; Carel ten Cate
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2009-12-02       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Talker identification across source mechanisms: experiments with laryngeal and electrolarynx speech.

Authors:  Tyler K Perrachione; Cara E Stepp; Robert E Hillman; Patrick C M Wong
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  Inferior frontal regions underlie the perception of phonetic category invariance.

Authors:  Emily B Myers; Sheila E Blumstein; Edward Walsh; James Eliassen
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2009-06-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.