Literature DB >> 24932053

Phonetic category recalibration: What are the categories?

Eva Reinisch1, David R Wozny2, Holger Mitterer3, Lori L Holt2.   

Abstract

Listeners use lexical or visual context information to recalibrate auditory speech perception. After hearing an ambiguous auditory stimulus between /aba/ and /ada/ coupled with a clear visual stimulus (e.g., lip closure in /aba/), an ambiguous auditory-only stimulus is perceived in line with the previously seen visual stimulus. What remains unclear, however, is what exactly listeners are recalibrating: phonemes, phone sequences, or acoustic cues. To address this question we tested generalization of visually-guided auditory recalibration to 1) the same phoneme contrast cued differently (i.e., /aba/-/ada/ vs. /ibi/-/idi/ where the main cues are formant transitions in the vowels vs. burst and frication of the obstruent), 2) a different phoneme contrast cued identically (/aba/-/ada/ vs. /ama/-/ana/ both cued by formant transitions in the vowels), and 3) the same phoneme contrast with the same cues in a different acoustic context (/aba/-/ada/ vs. (/ubu/-/udu/). Whereas recalibration was robust for all recalibration control trials, no generalization was found in any of the experiments. This suggests that perceptual recalibration may be more specific than previously thought as it appears to be restricted to the phoneme category experienced during exposure as well as to the specific manipulated acoustic cues. We suggest that recalibration affects context-dependent sub-lexical units.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Speech perception; audiovisual processing; perceptual learning; prelexical processing

Year:  2014        PMID: 24932053      PMCID: PMC4052890          DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2014.04.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Phon        ISSN: 0095-4470


  41 in total

Review 1.  The motor theory of speech perception reviewed.

Authors:  Bruno Galantucci; Carol A Fowler; M T Turvey
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2006-06

2.  Recalibrating color categories using world knowledge.

Authors:  Holger Mitterer; Jan Peter de Ruiter
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2008-07

3.  A power primer.

Authors:  J Cohen
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 17.737

4.  Does perceptual learning in speech reflect changes in phonetic category representation or decision bias?

Authors:  Constance M Clarke-Davidson; Paul A Luce; James R Sawusch
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2008-05

5.  The bounds on flexibility in speech perception.

Authors:  Matthias J Sjerps; James M McQueen
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Perception of the [m]-[n] distinction in VC syllables.

Authors:  B H Repp; K Svastikula
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  The TRACE model of speech perception.

Authors:  J L McClelland; J L Elman
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1986-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Visemes observed by hearing-impaired and normal-hearing adult viewers.

Authors:  E Owens; B Blazek
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1985-09

9.  Visual recalibration and selective adaptation in auditory-visual speech perception: Contrasting build-up courses.

Authors:  Jean Vroomen; Sabine van Linden; Béatrice de Gelder; Paul Bertelson
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2006-03-10       Impact factor: 3.139

Review 10.  Effects of phonetic context on audio-visual intelligibility of French.

Authors:  C Benoît; T Mohamadi; S Kandel
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1994-10
View more
  15 in total

1.  Perceptual Learning of Intonation Contour Categories in Adults and 9- to 11-Year-Old Children: Adults Are More Narrow-Minded.

Authors:  Vsevolod Kapatsinski; Paul Olejarczuk; Melissa A Redford
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2016-02-22

2.  Sensorimotor adaptation affects perceptual compensation for coarticulation.

Authors:  William L Schuerman; Srikantan Nagarajan; James M McQueen; John Houde
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Short-term implicit voice-learning leads to a Familiar Talker Advantage: The role of encoding specificity.

Authors:  Julie Case; Scott Seyfarth; Susannah V Levi
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Rapid adaptation to foreign-accented speech and its transfer to an unfamiliar talker.

Authors:  Xin Xie; Kodi Weatherholtz; Larisa Bainton; Emily Rowe; Zachary Burchill; Linda Liu; T Florian Jaeger
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  More than a boundary shift: Perceptual adaptation to foreign-accented speech reshapes the internal structure of phonetic categories.

Authors:  Xin Xie; Rachel M Theodore; Emily B Myers
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2016-11-07       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Varying acoustic-phonemic ambiguity reveals that talker normalization is obligatory in speech processing.

Authors:  Ja Young Choi; Elly R Hu; Tyler K Perrachione
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Cross-talker generalization in the perception of nonnative speech: A large-scale replication.

Authors:  Xin Xie; Linda Liu; T Florian Jaeger
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2021-08-09

8.  Rapid recalibration of speech perception after experiencing the McGurk illusion.

Authors:  Claudia S Lüttke; Alexis Pérez-Bellido; Floris P de Lange
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2018-03-28       Impact factor: 2.963

9.  Phonetic recalibration of speech by text.

Authors:  Mirjam Keetels; Lemmy Schakel; Milene Bonte; Jean Vroomen
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 2.199

10.  Mapping the Speech Code: Cortical Responses Linking the Perception and Production of Vowels.

Authors:  William L Schuerman; Antje S Meyer; James M McQueen
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2017-04-07       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.