Literature DB >> 33606960

Individual Differences in Lexical Contributions to Speech Perception.

Nikole Giovannone1,2, Rachel M Theodore1,2.   

Abstract

Purpose The extant literature suggests that individual differences in speech perception can be linked to broad receptive language phenotype. For example, a recent study found that individuals with a smaller receptive vocabulary showed diminished lexically guided perceptual learning compared to individuals with a larger receptive vocabulary. Here, we examined (a) whether such individual differences stem from variation in reliance on lexical information or variation in perceptual learning itself and (b) whether a relationship exists between lexical recruitment and lexically guided perceptual learning more broadly, as predicted by current models of lexically guided perceptual learning. Method In Experiment 1, adult participants (n = 70) completed measures of receptive and expressive language ability, lexical recruitment, and lexically guided perceptual learning. In Experiment 2, adult participants (n = 120) completed the same lexical recruitment and lexically guided perceptual learning tasks to provide a high-powered replication of the primary findings from Experiment 1. Results In Experiment 1, individuals with weaker receptive language ability showed increased lexical recruitment relative to individuals with higher receptive language ability; however, receptive language ability did not predict the magnitude of lexically guided perceptual learning. Moreover, the results of both experiments converged to show no evidence indicating a relationship between lexical recruitment and lexically guided perceptual learning. Conclusion The current findings suggest that (a) individuals with weaker language ability demonstrate increased reliance on lexical information for speech perception compared to those with stronger receptive language ability; (b) individuals with weaker language ability maintain an intact perceptual learning mechanism; and, (c) to the degree that the measures used here accurately capture individual differences in lexical recruitment and lexically guided perceptual learning, there is no graded relationship between these two constructs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33606960      PMCID: PMC8608212          DOI: 10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00283

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res        ISSN: 1092-4388            Impact factor:   2.297


  38 in total

1.  Merging information in speech recognition: feedback is never necessary.

Authors:  D Norris; J M McQueen; A Cutler
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 12.579

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

Review 3.  Perceptual learning for speech.

Authors:  Arthur G Samuel; Tanya Kraljic
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  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

5.  Trail making test: normative values from 287 normal adult controls.

Authors:  A R Giovagnoli; M Del Pesce; S Mascheroni; M Simoncelli; M Laiacona; E Capitani
Journal:  Ital J Neurol Sci       Date:  1996-08

6.  Lexically guided perceptual learning is robust to task-based changes in listening strategy.

Authors:  Julia R Drouin; Rachel M Theodore
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  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

Review 8.  On the internal structure of phonetic categories: a progress report.

Authors:  J L Miller
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1994 Apr-Jun

9.  The Role of Lexical Status and Individual Differences for Perceptual Learning in Younger and Older Adults.

Authors:  Sarah Colby; Meghan Clayards; Shari Baum
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  Speech perception and lexical effects in specific language impairment.

Authors:  Richard G Schwartz; Frances L V Scheffler; Karece Lopez
Journal:  Clin Linguist Phon       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 1.346

View more
  3 in total

1.  Perceptual learning of multiple talkers: Determinants, characteristics, and limitations.

Authors:  Shawn N Cummings; Rachel M Theodore
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-09-08       Impact factor: 2.157

2.  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

3.  FORUM: Remote testing for psychological and physiological acoustics.

Authors:  Z Ellen Peng; Sebastian Waz; Emily Buss; Yi Shen; Virginia Richards; Hari Bharadwaj; G Christopher Stecker; Jordan A Beim; Adam K Bosen; Meredith D Braza; Anna C Diedesch; Claire M Dorey; Andrew R Dykstra; Frederick J Gallun; Raymond L Goldsworthy; Lincoln Gray; Eric C Hoover; Antje Ihlefeld; Thomas Koelewijn; Judy G Kopun; Juraj Mesik; Daniel E Shub; Jonathan H Venezia
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2022-05       Impact factor: 2.482

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.