Literature DB >> 30604404

Distributional learning for speech reflects cumulative exposure to a talker's phonetic distributions.

Rachel M Theodore1,2, Nicholas R Monto3,4.   

Abstract

Efficient speech perception requires listeners to maintain an exquisite tension between stability of the language architecture and flexibility to accommodate variation in the input, such as that associated with individual talker differences in speech production. Achieving this tension can be guided by top-down learning mechanisms, wherein lexical information constrains interpretation of speech input, and by bottom-up learning mechanisms, in which distributional information in the speech signal is used to optimize the mapping to speech sound categories. An open question for theories of perceptual learning concerns the nature of the representations that are built for individual talkers: do these representations reflect long-term, global exposure to a talker or rather only short-term, local exposure? Recent research suggests that when lexical knowledge is used to resolve a talker's ambiguous productions, listeners disregard previous experience with a talker and instead rely on only recent experience, a finding that is contrary to predictions of Bayesian belief-updating accounts of perceptual adaptation. Here we use a distributional learning paradigm in which lexical information is not explicitly required to resolve ambiguous input to provide an additional test of global versus local exposure accounts. Listeners completed two blocks of phonetic categorization for stimuli that differed in voice-onset-time, a probabilistic cue to the voicing contrast in English stop consonants. In each block, two distributions were presented, one specifying /g/ and one specifying /k/. Across the two blocks, variance of the distributions was manipulated to be either narrow or wide. The critical manipulation was order of the two blocks; half of the listeners were first exposed to the narrow distributions followed by the wide distributions, with the order reversed for the other half of the listeners. The results showed that for earlier trials, the identification slope was steeper for the narrow-wide group compared to the wide-narrow group, but this difference was attenuated for later trials. The between-group convergence was driven by an asymmetry in learning between the two orders such that only those in the narrow-wide group showed slope movement during exposure, a pattern that was mirrored by computational simulations in which the distributional statistics of the present talker were integrated with prior experience with English. This pattern of results suggests that listeners did not disregard all prior experience with the talker, and instead used cumulative exposure to guide phonetic decisions, which raises the possibility that accommodating a talker's phonetic signature entails maintaining representations that reflect global experience.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Computational models; Distributional learning; Perceptual learning; Speech perception

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30604404      PMCID: PMC6559869          DOI: 10.3758/s13423-018-1551-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  14 in total

1.  The perceptual consequences of within-talker variability in fricative production.

Authors:  R S Newman; S A Clouse; J L Burnham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Acoustic characteristics of English fricatives.

Authors:  A Jongman; R Wayland; S Wong
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Characteristics of listener sensitivity to talker-specific phonetic detail.

Authors:  Rachel M Theodore; Joanne L Miller
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Word recognition reflects dimension-based statistical learning.

Authors:  Kaori Idemaru; Lori L Holt
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2011-10-17       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Individual talker differences in voice-onset-time: contextual influences.

Authors:  Rachel M Theodore; Joanne L Miller; David DeSteno
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Perception of speech reflects optimal use of probabilistic speech cues.

Authors:  Meghan Clayards; Michael K Tanenhaus; Richard N Aslin; Robert A Jacobs
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2008-06-25

7.  First impressions and last resorts: how listeners adjust to speaker variability.

Authors:  Tanya Kraljic; Arthur G Samuel; Susan E Brennan
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2008-04

Review 8.  Robust speech perception: recognize the familiar, generalize to the similar, and adapt to the novel.

Authors:  Dave F Kleinschmidt; T Florian Jaeger
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 8.934

9.  Perceptual learning for speech: Is there a return to normal?

Authors:  Tanya Kraljic; Arthur G Samuel
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Statistical learning of phonetic categories: insights from a computational approach.

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Richard N Aslin; Joseph C Toscano
Journal:  Dev Sci       Date:  2009-04
View more
  3 in total

1.  Individual Differences in Distributional Learning for Speech: What's Ideal for Ideal Observers?

Authors:  Rachel M Theodore; Nicholas R Monto; Stephen Graham
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-12-16       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  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

3.  Modelling representations in speech normalization of prosodic cues.

Authors:  Chen Si; Caicai Zhang; Puiyin Lau; Yike Yang; Bei Li
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-08-27       Impact factor: 4.996

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.