Literature DB >> 28406683

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

Efthymia C Kapnoula1, Matthew B Winn2, Eun Jong Kong3, Jan Edwards4, Bob McMurray1.   

Abstract

During spoken language comprehension listeners transform continuous acoustic cues into categories (e.g., /b/ and /p/). While long-standing research suggests that phonetic categories are activated in a gradient way, there are also clear individual differences in that more gradient categorization has been linked to various communication impairments such as dyslexia and specific language impairments (Joanisse, Manis, Keating, & Seidenberg, 2000; López-Zamora, Luque, Álvarez, & Cobos, 2012; Serniclaes, Van Heghe, Mousty, Carré, & Sprenger-Charolles, 2004; Werker & Tees, 1987). Crucially, most studies have used 2-alternative forced choice (2AFC) tasks to measure the sharpness of between-category boundaries. Here we propose an alternative paradigm that allows us to measure categorization gradiency in a more direct way. Furthermore, we follow an individual differences approach to (a) link this measure of gradiency to multiple cue integration, (b) explore its relationship to a set of other cognitive processes, and (c) evaluate its role in individuals' ability to perceive speech in noise. Our results provide validation for this new method of assessing phoneme categorization gradiency and offer preliminary insights into how different aspects of speech perception may be linked to each other and to more general cognitive processes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28406683      PMCID: PMC5561468          DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000410

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  67 in total

1.  Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information.

Authors:  W K KIRCHNER
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1958-04

2.  Word Recognition Variability With Cochlear Implants: "Perceptual Attention" Versus "Auditory Sensitivity".

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Joanna H Lowenstein; Susan Nittrouer
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Individual differences in categorical perception of speech: Cue weighting and executive function.

Authors:  Eun Jong Kong; Jan Edwards
Journal:  J Phon       Date:  2016-09-23

4.  Speech perception in severely disabled and average reading children.

Authors:  J F Werker; R C Tees
Journal:  Can J Psychol       Date:  1987-03

5.  Recognition of vowels from information in fricatives: perceptual evidence of fricative-vowel coarticulation.

Authors:  G H Yeni-Komshian; S D Soli
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1981-10       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Phonetic trading relations and context effects: new experimental evidence for a speech mode of perception.

Authors:  B H Repp
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1982-07       Impact factor: 17.737

7.  Anticipatory coarticulation facilitates word recognition in toddlers.

Authors:  Tristan Mahr; Brianna T M McMillan; Jenny R Saffran; Susan Ellis Weismer; Jan Edwards
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2015-06-11

8.  Inferior frontal regions underlie the perception of phonetic category invariance.

Authors:  Emily B Myers; Sheila E Blumstein; Edward Walsh; James Eliassen
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2009-06-08

9.  Discrimination of speech sounds by children with dyslexia: comparisons with chronological age and reading level controls.

Authors:  C Bogliotti; W Serniclaes; S Messaoud-Galusi; L Sprenger-Charolles
Journal:  J Exp Child Psychol       Date:  2008-05-06

10.  Children with specific language impairments perceive speech most categorically when tokens are natural and meaningful.

Authors:  Jeffry A Coady; Julia L Evans; Elina Mainela-Arnold; Keith R Kluender
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.297

View more
  10 in total

1.  Speech categorization develops slowly through adolescence.

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Ani Danelz; Hannah Rigler; Michael Seedorff
Journal:  Dev Psychol       Date:  2018-06-28

2.  Rethinking the McGurk effect as a perceptual illusion.

Authors:  Laura M Getz; Joseph C Toscano
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Individual differences in categorical perception of speech: Cue weighting and executive function.

Authors:  Eun Jong Kong; Jan Edwards
Journal:  J Phon       Date:  2016-09-23

4.  Dynamic EEG analysis during language comprehension reveals interactive cascades between perceptual processing and sentential expectations.

Authors:  McCall E Sarrett; Bob McMurray; Efthymia C Kapnoula
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2020-10-18       Impact factor: 2.381

Review 5.  Lipreading: A Review of Its Continuing Importance for Speech Recognition With an Acquired Hearing Loss and Possibilities for Effective Training.

Authors:  Lynne E Bernstein; Nicole Jordan; Edward T Auer; Silvio P Eberhardt
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2022-03-22       Impact factor: 1.636

6.  Does the Speech Cue Profile Affect Response to Amplitude Envelope Distortion?

Authors:  Pamela E Souza; Gregory Ellis; Kendra Marks; Richard Wright; Frederick Gallun
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-05-21       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  Gradient activation of speech categories facilitates listeners' recovery from lexical garden paths, but not perception of speech-in-noise.

Authors:  Efthymia C Kapnoula; Jan Edwards; Bob McMurray
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2021-04       Impact factor: 3.077

8.  Perceptual Cue Weighting Is Influenced by the Listener's Gender and Subjective Evaluations of the Speaker: The Case of English Stop Voicing.

Authors:  Alan C L Yu
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-04-20

9.  What accounts for individual differences in susceptibility to the McGurk effect?

Authors:  Violet A Brown; Maryam Hedayati; Annie Zanger; Sasha Mayn; Lucia Ray; Naseem Dillman-Hasso; Julia F Strand
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Individual Variability in Recalibrating to Spectrally Shifted Speech: Implications for Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Michael L Smith; Matthew B Winn
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021 Sep/Oct       Impact factor: 3.562

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.