Literature DB >> 21417542

What information is necessary for speech categorization? Harnessing variability in the speech signal by integrating cues computed relative to expectations.

Bob McMurray1, Allard Jongman.   

Abstract

Most theories of categorization emphasize how continuous perceptual information is mapped to categories. However, equally important are the informational assumptions of a model, the type of information subserving this mapping. This is crucial in speech perception where the signal is variable and context dependent. This study assessed the informational assumptions of several models of speech categorization, in particular, the number of cues that are the basis of categorization and whether these cues represent the input veridically or have undergone compensation. We collected a corpus of 2,880 fricative productions (Jongman, Wayland, & Wong, 2000) spanning many talker and vowel contexts and measured 24 cues for each. A subset was also presented to listeners in an 8AFC phoneme categorization task. We then trained a common classification model based on logistic regression to categorize the fricative from the cue values and manipulated the information in the training set to contrast (a) models based on a small number of invariant cues, (b) models using all cues without compensation, and (c) models in which cues underwent compensation for contextual factors. Compensation was modeled by computing cues relative to expectations (C-CuRE), a new approach to compensation that preserves fine-grained detail in the signal. Only the compensation model achieved a similar accuracy to listeners and showed the same effects of context. Thus, even simple categorization metrics can overcome the variability in speech when sufficient information is available and compensation schemes like C-CuRE are employed. 2011 APA, all rights reserved

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21417542      PMCID: PMC3523696          DOI: 10.1037/a0022325

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Rev        ISSN: 0033-295X            Impact factor:   8.934


  104 in total

1.  Perceptual parsing of acoustic consequences of velum lowering from information for vowels.

Authors:  C A Fowler; J M Brown
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2000-01

2.  Generalizing a neuropsychological model of visual categorization to auditory categorization of vowels.

Authors:  W Todd Maddox; Michelle R Molis; Randy L Diehl
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2002-05

3.  What determines visual cue reliability?

Authors:  Robert A. Jacobs
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2002-08-01       Impact factor: 20.229

4.  The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries.

Authors:  A M LIBERMAN; K S HARRIS; H S HOFFMAN; B C GRIFFITH
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1957-11

5.  Context effects on musical chord categorization: Different forms of top-down feedback in speech and music?

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Joel L Dennhardt; Andrew Struck-Marcell
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2008-07

6.  Role of articulation in speech perception: clues from production.

Authors:  B Lindblom
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Colour constancy as a function of hue.

Authors:  J J Kulikowski; H Vaitkevicius
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  1997-10

8.  Perception of anticipatory coarticulation effects.

Authors:  J G Martin; H T Bunnell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1981-02       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Segmentation of coarticulated speech in perception.

Authors:  C A Fowler
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1984-10

10.  Statistical learning of phonetic categories: insights from a computational approach.

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Richard N Aslin; Joseph C Toscano
Journal:  Dev Sci       Date:  2009-04
View more
  72 in total

1.  The influence of stop consonants' perceptual features on the Articulation Index model.

Authors:  Riya Singh; Jont B Allen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-04       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.  Do adults with cochlear implants rely on different acoustic cues for phoneme perception than adults with normal hearing?

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Joanna H Lowenstein; Eric Tarr; Amanda Caldwell-Tarr; D Bradley Welling; Antoine J Shahin; Susan Nittrouer
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  Individual differences in language ability are related to variation in word recognition, not speech perception: evidence from eye movements.

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Cheyenne Munson; J Bruce Tomblin
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.297

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.  The Effect of Residual Acoustic Hearing and Adaptation to Uncertainty on Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users: Evidence From Eye-Tracking.

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Ashley Farris-Trimble; Michael Seedorff; Hannah Rigler
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Evaluating the sources and functions of gradiency in phoneme categorization: An individual differences approach.

Authors:  Efthymia C Kapnoula; Matthew B Winn; Eun Jong Kong; Jan Edwards; Bob McMurray
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2017-04-13       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Cue-integration and context effects in speech: evidence against speaking-rate normalization.

Authors:  Joseph C Toscano; Bob McMurray
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  What Are You Waiting For? Real-Time Integration of Cues for Fricatives Suggests Encapsulated Auditory Memory.

Authors:  Marcus E Galle; Jamie Klein-Packard; Kayleen Schreiber; Bob McMurray
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2019-01

10.  Pigeons acquire multiple categories in parallel via associative learning: a parallel to human word learning?

Authors:  Edward A Wasserman; Daniel I Brooks; Bob McMurray
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2014-12-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.