Literature DB >> 28503007

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

Eun Jong Kong1, Jan Edwards2.   

Abstract

This study examined individual differences in categorical perception and the use of multiple acoustic cues in the perception of the stop voicing contrast. Goals were to investigate whether gradiency of speech perception was related to listeners' differential sensitivity to acoustic cues and to individual differences in executive function. The experiment included two speech perception tasks (visual analogue scaling [VAS] and anticipatory eye movement [AEM]) administered to 30 English-speaking adults in two separate experimental sessions. Stimuli were a /ta/ to /da/ continuum that systematically varied VOT and f0. Findings were that some listeners had a more gradient pattern of responses on the VAS task; the listeners who had a gradient response pattern on the VAS task also showed more sensitivity to f0 on the AEM task. The patterns were consistent across individuals tested on two separate occasions. These results suggest that variability in how categorically listeners perceive speech sounds is consistent and systematic within individuals.

Entities:  

Keywords:  categorical perception; executive function capacity; eye movement; individual difference; stop voicing contrast; visual analogue scaling

Year:  2016        PMID: 28503007      PMCID: PMC5423668          DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2016.08.006

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


  58 in total

1.  The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex "Frontal Lobe" tasks: a latent variable analysis.

Authors:  A Miyake; N P Friedman; M J Emerson; A H Witzki; A Howerter; T D Wager
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries.

Authors:  A M LIBERMAN; K S HARRIS; H S HOFFMAN; B C GRIFFITH
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1957-11

3.  Phonetic training with acoustic cue manipulations: a comparison of methods for teaching English /r/-/l/ to Japanese adults.

Authors:  Paul Iverson; Valerie Hazan; Kerry Bannister
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  On the nature of talker variability effects on recall of spoken word lists.

Authors:  S D Goldinger; D B Pisoni; J S Logan
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 3.051

5.  Deconstructing phonetic transcription: covert contrast, perceptual bias, and an extraterrestrial view of Vox Humana.

Authors:  Benjamin Munson; Jan Edwards; Sarah K Schellinger; Mary E Beckman; Marie K Meyer
Journal:  Clin Linguist Phon       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.346

6.  Predicting developmental shifts in perceptual weighting schemes.

Authors:  S Nittrouer; M E Miller
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  The cricothyroid muscle in voicing control.

Authors:  A Löfqvist; T Baer; N S McGarr; R S Story
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 1.840

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

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

9.  Working Memory Spans as Predictors of Spoken Word Recognition and Receptive Vocabulary in Children with Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Miranda Cleary; David B Pisoni; Karen Iler Kirk
Journal:  Volta Rev       Date:  2000

10.  Individual differences in perceptual adaptability of foreign sound categories.

Authors:  Jessamyn Schertz; Taehong Cho; Andrew Lotto; Natasha Warner
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.199

View more
  9 in total

1.  Training a non-native vowel contrast with a distributional learning paradigm results in improved perception and production.

Authors:  Heather Kabakoff; Gretchen Go; Susannah V Levi
Journal:  J Phon       Date:  2019-12-13

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

Authors:  Efthymia C Kapnoula; Matthew B Winn; Eun Jong Kong; Jan Edwards; Bob McMurray
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2017-04-13       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Speech categorization develops slowly through adolescence.

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

4.  Categorical Encoding of Vowels in Primary Auditory Cortex.

Authors:  Deborah F Levy; Stephen M Wilson
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2020-03-21       Impact factor: 5.357

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Individual differences in processing non-speech acoustic signals influence cue weighting strategies for L2 speech contrasts.

Authors:  Xiaoluan Liu
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2022-03-23

8.  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

9.  Effects of Noise on the Behavioral and Neural Categorization of Speech.

Authors:  Gavin M Bidelman; Lauren C Bush; Alex M Boudreaux
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2020-02-27       Impact factor: 4.677

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.