Literature DB >> 28584497

Direct Perceptions of Carol Fowler's Theoretical Perspective.

D H Whalen1.   

Abstract

Carol Fowler has had a tremendous impact on the field of speech perception, in part by having people disagree with her. The disagreements arise, as they often do, from two incompatible sources: Her positions are often misunderstood and thus "disagreed" with only on the surface, and her positions are rejected because they challenge deeply held, intuitively appealing positions, without being shown to be wrong. The misunderstandings center largely on the assertion that perception is "direct." This is often taken to mean that we have access to the speaker's vocal tract by some means other than the (largely acoustic) speech signal, when, in fact, it asserts that the signal is sufficient to directly specify that production. It is unclear why this misunderstanding persists; while there are still issues to be resolved in this regard, the stance is clear. The challenge to "acoustic" theories of speech perception remains, and thus direct perception is still controversial, as it seems that acoustic theories are held by a majority of researchers. Decades' worth of evidence showing the lack of usefulness of purely acoustic properties and the coherence gained by a production perspective have not changed this situation. Some attempts at combining the two perspectives have emerged, but they largely miss the Gibsonian challenge that Fowler has espoused: Perception of speech is direct. It looks as though it will take some further decades of research and discussion to fully explore her position.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Carol Fowler; Direct perception; James Gibson; speech perception

Year:  2016        PMID: 28584497      PMCID: PMC5456457          DOI: 10.1080/10407413.2016.1230367

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Psychol        ISSN: 1040-7413


  10 in total

1.  Articulatory tradeoffs reduce acoustic variability during American English /r/ production.

Authors:  F H Guenther; C Y Espy-Wilson; S E Boyce; M L Matthies; M Zandipour; J S Perkell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Movement goals and feedback and feedforward control mechanisms in speech production.

Authors:  Joseph S Perkell
Journal:  J Neurolinguistics       Date:  2010-03-26       Impact factor: 1.710

Review 3.  Speech perception.

Authors:  Randy L Diehl; Andrew J Lotto; Lori L Holt
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 24.137

4.  Observations on active touch.

Authors:  J J GIBSON
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1962-11       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  Differentiation of speech and nonspeech processing within primary auditory cortex.

Authors:  D H Whalen; Randall R Benson; Matthew Richardson; Brook Swainson; Vincent P Clark; Song Lai; W Einar Mencl; Robert K Fulbright; R Todd Constable; Alvin M Liberman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Vowel constrictions are recoverable from formants.

Authors:  Khalil Iskarous
Journal:  J Phon       Date:  2010-07-01

Review 7.  Listeners do hear sounds, not tongues.

Authors:  C A Fowler
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  SPEECH PERCEPTION AS A TALKER-CONTINGENT PROCESS.

Authors:  Lynne C Nygaard; Mitchell S Sommers; David B Pisoni
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  1994-01-01

9.  Articulatory events are imitated under rapid shadowing.

Authors:  Douglas N Honorof; Jeffrey Weihing; Carol A Fowler
Journal:  J Phon       Date:  2010-12-13

10.  Embodied, Embedded Language Use.

Authors:  Carol A Fowler
Journal:  Ecol Psychol       Date:  2010-10-01
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.