Literature DB >> 2755763

Speech perception by budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): the voiced-voiceless distinction.

R J Dooling, K Okanoya, S D Brown.   

Abstract

Discrimination of synthetic speech sounds from the bilabial, alveolar, and velar voice onset time (VOT) series was studied in 5 budgerigars. The birds were trained, using operant conditioning procedures, to detect changes in a repeating background of sound consisting of a synthetic speech token. Response latencies for detection were measured and were used to construct similarity matrices. Multidimensional scaling procedures were then used to produce spatial maps of these speech sounds, in which perceptual similarity was represented by spatial proximity. The results of these experiments suggest that budgerigars discriminate among synthetic speech sounds from these three VOT continua, especially between those from the bilabial and alveolar series, in a categorical fashion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2755763     DOI: 10.3758/bf03208075

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 0031-5117


  29 in total

1.  Multidimensional scaling, tree-fitting, and clustering.

Authors:  R N Shepard
Journal:  Science       Date:  1980-10-24       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Auditory temporal acuity in relation to category boundaries; speech and nonspeech stimuli.

Authors:  D Kewley-Port; C S Watson; D C Foyle
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 3.  Perception of the speech code.

Authors:  A M Liberman; F S Cooper; D P Shankweiler; M Studdert-Kennedy
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1967-11       Impact factor: 8.934

4.  Theoretical notes. Motor theory of speech perception: a reply to Lane's critical review.

Authors:  M Studdert-Kennedy; A M Liberman; K S Harris; F S Cooper
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1970-05       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  Enhanced discriminability at the phonetic boundaries for the place feature in macaques.

Authors:  P K Kuhl; D M Padden
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Auditory duration discrimination in the parakeet (Melopsittacus undulatus).

Authors:  R J Dooling; R J Haskell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1978-05       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Frequency selectivity in bird and man: a comparison among critical ratios, critical bands and psychophysical tuning curves.

Authors:  J C Saunders; W F Rintelmann; G R Bock
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1979-12       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Nonsimultaneous auditory masking in the budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus).

Authors:  R J Dooling; M H Searcy
Journal:  J Comp Psychol       Date:  1985-06       Impact factor: 2.231

9.  Temporal integration of acoustic signals by the budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus).

Authors:  R J Dooling; M H Searcy
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1985-05       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 10.  Models and mechanisms in speech perception. Species comparisons provide further contributions.

Authors:  P K Kuhl
Journal:  Brain Behav Evol       Date:  1979       Impact factor: 1.808

View more
  12 in total

1.  Cortical activity patterns predict speech discrimination ability.

Authors:  Crystal T Engineer; Claudia A Perez; YeTing H Chen; Ryan S Carraway; Amanda C Reed; Jai A Shetake; Vikram Jakkamsetti; Kevin Q Chang; Michael P Kilgard
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2008-04-20       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  Increasing diversity of neural responses to speech sounds across the central auditory pathway.

Authors:  K G Ranasinghe; W A Vrana; C J Matney; M P Kilgard
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2013-08-14       Impact factor: 3.590

3.  Midbrain Synchrony to Envelope Structure Supports Behavioral Sensitivity to Single-Formant Vowel-Like Sounds in Noise.

Authors:  Kenneth S Henry; Kristina S Abrams; Johanna Forst; Matthew J Mender; Erikson G Neilans; Fabio Idrobo; Laurel H Carney
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-10-20

Review 4.  Sound sequences in birdsong: how much do birds really care?

Authors:  Adam R Fishbein; William J Idsardi; Gregory F Ball; Robert J Dooling
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2019-11-18       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  Zebra finches exhibit speaker-independent phonetic perception of human speech.

Authors:  Verena R Ohms; Arike Gill; Caroline A A Van Heijningen; Gabriel J L Beckers; Carel ten Cate
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2009-12-02       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Detection thresholds for amplitude modulations of tones in budgerigar, rabbit, and human.

Authors:  Laurel H Carney; Angela D Ketterer; Kristina S Abrams; Douglas M Schwarz; Fabio Idrobo
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 2.622

7.  Speech perception by budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): spoken vowels.

Authors:  R J Dooling; S D Brown
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1990-06

8.  Persistent Auditory Nerve Damage Following Kainic Acid Excitotoxicity in the Budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus).

Authors:  Kenneth S Henry; Kristina S Abrams
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-05-09

9.  Zebra finches and Dutch adults exhibit the same cue weighting bias in vowel perception.

Authors:  Verena R Ohms; Paola Escudero; Karin Lammers; Carel ten Cate
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2011-07-15       Impact factor: 3.084

10.  Prosody discrimination by songbirds (Padda oryzivora).

Authors:  Nozomi Naoi; Shigeru Watanabe; Kikuo Maekawa; Junko Hibiya
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-10-17       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.