Literature DB >> 22498776

Learning individual talkers' structural preferences.

Yuki Kamide1.   

Abstract

Listeners are often capable of adjusting to the variability contained in individual talkers' (speakers') speech. The vast majority of findings on talker adaptation are concerned with learning the contingency between phonological characteristics and talker identity. In contrast, the present study investigates representations at a more abstract level - the contingency between syntactic attachment style and talker identity. In a 'visual-world' experiment, participants were exposed to semi-realistic scenes depicting several objects (e.g., an adult man, a young girl, a motorbike, a carousel, and other objects) accompanied by a spoken sentence with a structurally ambiguous relative clause (e.g., 'The uncle of the girl who will ride the motorbike/carousel is from France.' In the context of the scene, 'motorbike' suggested the uncle as the agent of the riding, whereas 'carousel' suggested the girl as the agent). For half the experimental items, one version of the sentence was read by one talker, who always uttered sentences that resolved, pragmatically, to the high attachment (the uncle as the agent), and the other by another talker, who always uttered sentences resolving to the low attachment (the girl as the agent). For the other half of the experimental items, both versions were read by a third talker who produced both high and low attachments. It was found that, after exposure to these stimuli, and for new sentences not heard previously, participants learnt to anticipate the 'appropriate' attachment depending on talker identity (with no attachment preference for the talker who produced both attachment types). The data suggest that listeners can learn the relationship between talker identity and abstract, structural, properties of their speech, and that syntactic attachment decisions in comprehension can reflect sensitivity to talker-specific syntactic style.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22498776     DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cognition        ISSN: 0010-0277


  25 in total

1.  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

2.  Incremental implicit learning of bundles of statistical patterns.

Authors:  Ting Qian; T Florian Jaeger; Richard N Aslin
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2016-09-15

Review 3.  Robust speech perception: recognize the familiar, generalize to the similar, and adapt to the novel.

Authors:  Dave F Kleinschmidt; T Florian Jaeger
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 8.934

4.  Listeners consider alternative speaker productions in discourse comprehension and memory: Evidence from beat gesture and pitch accenting.

Authors:  Laura M Morett; Scott H Fraundorf
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2019-11

5.  Neural Measures Reveal Implicit Learning during Language Processing.

Authors:  Laura J Batterink; Larry Y Cheng; Ken A Paller
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2016-05-31       Impact factor: 3.225

6.  Is it or isn't it: listeners make rapid use of prosody to infer speaker meanings.

Authors:  Chigusa Kurumada; Meredith Brown; Sarah Bibyk; Daniel F Pontillo; Michael K Tanenhaus
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2014-08-14

7.  Learning Additional Languages as Hierarchical Probabilistic Inference: Insights From First Language Processing.

Authors:  Bozena Pajak; Alex B Fine; Dave F Kleinschmidt; T Florian Jaeger
Journal:  Lang Learn       Date:  2016-03-14

8.  Distinct Neural Networks Relate to Common and Speaker-Specific Language Priors.

Authors:  Leon O H Kroczek; Thomas C Gunter
Journal:  Cereb Cortex Commun       Date:  2020-05-29

9.  Form-to-expectation matching effects on first-pass eye movement measures during reading.

Authors:  Thomas A Farmer; Shaorong Yan; Klinton Bicknell; Michael K Tanenhaus
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2015-04-27       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?

Authors:  Gina R Kuperberg; T Florian Jaeger
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2015-11-13       Impact factor: 2.331

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.