Literature DB >> 22088035

The redundancy of phonemes in sentential context.

Christian E Stilp1.   

Abstract

Printed English is highly redundant as demonstrated by readers' facility at guessing which letter comes next in text. However, such findings have been generalized to perception of connected speech without any direct assessment of phonemic redundancy. Here, participants guessed which phoneme or printed character came next throughout each of four unrelated sentences. Phonemes displayed significantly lower redundancy than letters, and possible contributing factors (task difficulty, experience, context) are discussed. Of three models tested, phonemic guessing was best approximated by word-initial and transitional probabilities between phonemes. Implications for information-theoretic accounts of speech perception are considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22088035      PMCID: PMC3206899          DOI: 10.1121/1.3645966

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


  11 in total

1.  Learning new words: phonotactic probability in language development.

Authors:  H L Storkel
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  Using statistical decision theory to predict speech intelligibility. I. Model structure.

Authors:  H Müsch; S Buus
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native listeners.

Authors:  Sander J van Wijngaarden; Herman J M Steeneken; Tammo Houtgast
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  A web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English.

Authors:  Michael S Vitevitch; Paul A Luce
Journal:  Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput       Date:  2004-08

5.  The effect of linguistic entropy on speech perception in noise in young and elderly listeners.

Authors:  J C van Rooij; R Plomp
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials.

Authors:  G A MILLER; G A HEISE; W LICHTEN
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1951-05

7.  Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability.

Authors:  D N Kalikow; K N Stevens; L L Elliott
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1977-05       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition.

Authors:  A Boothroyd; S Nittrouer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Predictability and redundancy of natural images.

Authors:  D Kersten
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A       Date:  1987-12       Impact factor: 2.129

10.  Phonotactic constraints on infant word learning.

Authors:  Katharine Graf Estes; Jan Edwards; Jenny R Saffran
Journal:  Infancy       Date:  2011
View more
  6 in total

1.  Perceptual Organization of Interrupted Speech and Text.

Authors:  Valeriy Shafiro; Daniel Fogerty; Kimberly Smith; Stanley Sheft
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-10-26       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  Importance of envelope modulations during consonants and vowels in segmentally interrupted sentences.

Authors:  Daniel Fogerty
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Neural-scaled entropy predicts the effects of nonlinear frequency compression on speech perception.

Authors:  Varsha H Rallapalli; Joshua M Alexander
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Spectral and Temporal Envelope Cues for Human and Automatic Speech Recognition in Noise.

Authors:  Guangxin Hu; Sarah C Determan; Yue Dong; Alec T Beeve; Joshua E Collins; Yan Gai
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-11-22

5.  Speech Perception with Noise Vocoding and Background Noise: An EEG and Behavioral Study.

Authors:  Yue Dong; Yan Gai
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-04-13

Review 6.  Short-term memory and long-term memory are still different.

Authors:  Dennis Norris
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2017-05-22       Impact factor: 17.737

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.