Literature DB >> 20606713

Auditory Sensitivity to Formant Ratios:Toward an Account of Vowel Normalization.

Philip J Monahan1, William J Idsardi.   

Abstract

A long-standing question in speech perception research is how do listeners extract linguistic content from a highly variable acoustic input. In the domain of vowel perception, formant ratios, or the calculation of relative bark differences between vowel formants, have been a sporadically proposed solution. We propose a novel formant ratio algorithm in which the first (F1) and second (F2) formants are compared against the third formant (F3). Results from two magnetoencephelographic (MEG) experiments are presented that suggest auditory cortex is sensitive to formant ratios. Our findings also demonstrate that the perceptual system shows heightened sensitivity to formant ratios for tokens located in more crowded regions of the vowel space. Additionally, we present statistical evidence that this algorithm eliminates speaker-dependent variation based on age and gender from vowel productions. We conclude that these results present an impetus to reconsider formant ratios as a legitimate mechanistic component in the solution to the problem of speaker normalization.

Entities:  

Year:  2010        PMID: 20606713      PMCID: PMC2893733          DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2010.490047

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lang Cogn Process        ISSN: 0169-0965


  57 in total

1.  Evoked potential audiometry.

Authors:  T W Picton; D L Woods; J Baribeau-Braun; T M Healey
Journal:  J Otolaryngol       Date:  1976-04

Review 2.  Evolving theories of vowel perception.

Authors:  W Strange
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  A comparison of vowel normalization procedures for language variation research.

Authors:  Patti Adank; Roel Smits; Roeland van Hout
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Dynamic and task-dependent encoding of speech and voice by phase reorganization of cortical oscillations.

Authors:  Milene Bonte; Giancarlo Valente; Elia Formisano
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2009-02-11       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Spectral integration of dynamic cues in the perception of syllable-initial stops.

Authors:  Robert Allen Fox; Ewa Jacewicz; Lawrence L Feth
Journal:  Phonetica       Date:  2008-05-28       Impact factor: 1.759

6.  Encoding of steady-state vowels in the auditory nerve: representation in terms of discharge rate.

Authors:  M B Sachs; E D Young
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1979-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Spectral-shape features versus formants as acoustic correlates for vowels.

Authors:  S A Zahorian; A J Jagharghi
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Dynamic specification of coarticulated vowels.

Authors:  W Strange; J J Jenkins; T L Johnson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Piecewise--planar representation of vowel formant frequencies.

Authors:  D J Broad; H Wakita
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1977-12       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 10.  The neuroanatomical and functional organization of speech perception.

Authors:  Sophie K Scott; Ingrid S Johnsrude
Journal:  Trends Neurosci       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 13.837

View more
  9 in total

1.  Neuromagnetic evidence for a featural distinction of English consonants: sensor- and source-space data.

Authors:  Mathias Scharinger; Jennifer Merickel; Joshua Riley; William J Idsardi
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2010-12-23       Impact factor: 2.381

2.  Sparseness of vowel category structure: Evidence from English dialect comparison.

Authors:  Mathias Scharinger; William J Idsardi
Journal:  Lingua       Date:  2014-02-01

Review 3.  Static measurements of vowel formant frequencies and bandwidths: A review.

Authors:  Raymond D Kent; Houri K Vorperian
Journal:  J Commun Disord       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 2.288

Review 4.  When context is and isn't helpful: A corpus study of naturalistic speech.

Authors:  Kasia Hitczenko; Reiko Mazuka; Micha Elsner; Naomi H Feldman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2020-08

5.  A general auditory bias for handling speaker variability in speech? Evidence in humans and songbirds.

Authors:  Buddhamas Kriengwatana; Paola Escudero; Anne H Kerkhoven; Carel Ten Cate
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-08-25

Review 6.  Revisiting vocal perception in non-human animals: a review of vowel discrimination, speaker voice recognition, and speaker normalization.

Authors:  Buddhamas Kriengwatana; Paola Escudero; Carel Ten Cate
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-01-13

7.  Speaker and Accent Variation Are Handled Differently: Evidence in Native and Non-Native Listeners.

Authors:  Buddhamas Kriengwatana; Josephine Terry; Kateřina Chládková; Paola Escudero
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Speaker-normalized sound representations in the human auditory cortex.

Authors:  Matthias J Sjerps; Neal P Fox; Keith Johnson; Edward F Chang
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2019-06-05       Impact factor: 14.919

9.  Modelling representations in speech normalization of prosodic cues.

Authors:  Chen Si; Caicai Zhang; Puiyin Lau; Yike Yang; Bei Li
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-08-27       Impact factor: 4.996

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.