Literature DB >> 35320458

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

Xiaoluan Liu1.   

Abstract

How could individual differences in processing non-speech acoustic signals influence their cue weighting strategies for L2 speech contrasts? The present study investigated this question by testing forty L1 Chinese-L2 English listeners with two tasks: one for testing the listeners' sensitivity to pitch and temporal information of non-speech acoustic signals; the other for testing their cue weighting (VOT, F0) strategies for distinguishing voicing contrasts in English stop consonants. The results showed that the more sensitive the listeners were to temporal differences of non-speech acoustic signals, the more they relied on VOT to differentiate between the voicing contrasts in English stop consonants. No such association was found between listeners' differences in sensitivity to pitch changes of non-speech acoustic signals and their reliance on F0 to cue the voicing contrasts. The results could shed light on the different processing mechanisms for pitch and temporal information of acoustic signals.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cue weighting; English stop consonants; Individual differences; L1 Chinese; L2 speech contrasts

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35320458     DOI: 10.1007/s10936-022-09869-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res        ISSN: 0090-6905


  19 in total

1.  Pitch and timing abilities in adult left-hemisphere-dysphasic and right-hemisphere-damaged subjects.

Authors:  K J Alcock; D Wade; P Anslow; R E Passingham
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2000-10-15       Impact factor: 2.381

2.  Selective attention and the acquisition of new phonetic categories.

Authors:  Alexander L Francis; Howard C Nusbaum
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Individual variability in cue-weighting and lexical tone learning.

Authors:  Bharath Chandrasekaran; Padma D Sampath; Patrick C M Wong
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Cue weighting in auditory categorization: implications for first and second language acquisition.

Authors:  Lori L Holt; Andrew J Lotto
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Cue-specific effects of categorization training on the relative weighting of acoustic cues to consonant voicing in English.

Authors:  Alexander L Francis; Natalya Kaganovich; Courtney Driscoll-Huber
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Effects of obstruent consonants on fundamental frequency at vowel onset in English.

Authors:  Helen M Hanson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Musical ability and non-native speech-sound processing are linked through sensitivity to pitch and spectral information.

Authors:  Vera Kempe; Dennis Bublitz; Patricia J Brooks
Journal:  Br J Psychol       Date:  2014-09-13

8.  Tones and numbers: specificity of interference in immediate memory.

Authors:  D Deutsch
Journal:  Science       Date:  1970-06-26       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  Attentional modulation of the phonetic significance of acoustic cues.

Authors:  P C Gordon; J L Eberhardt; J G Rueckl
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Receptive amusia: temporal auditory processing deficit in a professional musician following a left temporo-parietal lesion.

Authors:  Marie Di Pietro; Marina Laganaro; Béatrice Leemann; Armin Schnider
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 3.139

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.