On the bistability of sine wave analogues of speech

Psychological Science

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 24-29

  Remez, Robert E ^a   Pardo, Jennifer S ^b   Piorkowski, Rebecca L ^a   Rubin, Philip E ^c  

^a Program on US Russia Relations at Columbia s Harriman Institute   (United States)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c HASKINS LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ESOPHAGUS SPEECH; HUMAN; PHONETICS; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

HUMANS; PHONETICS; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH, ALARYNGEAL;

EID: 0035222282     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00305     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Assmann, P.F., & Summerfield, Q. (1990). Modeling the perception of concurrent vowels: Vowels with different fundamental frequency. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 680-697.
2. Barker, J., & Cooke, M. (1997, September). Modeling the recognition of spectrally reduced speech. Paper presented at the 1997 Eurospeech Conference in Rhodes. Greece.
3. Best, C.T., Studdert-Kennedy, M., Manuel, S., & Rubin-Spitz, J. (1989). Discovering phonetic coherence in acoustic patterns. Perception & Psychophysics, 45, 237-250.
4. Bregman, A.S. (1990). Auditory scene analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Carrell, T.D., & Opie, J.M. (1992). The effect of amplitude comodulation on auditory object formation in sentence perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 52, 437-445.
6. Cooper, F.S., Delattre, P.C., Liberman, A.M., Borst, J.M., & Gerstman, L.J. (1952). Some experiments on the perception of synthetic speech sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24, 597-606.
7. Darwin, C.J. (1997). Auditory grouping. Trends in Cognitive Science, 1, 327-333.
8. Diehl, R.L., Kluender, K.R., Walsh, M.A., & Parker, E.M. (1991). Auditory enhancement in speech perception and phonology. In R.R. Hoffman & D.S. Palermo (Eds.). Cognition and the symbolic process: Analytical and ecological perspectives (pp. 59-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Fodor, J.A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Johnson, K., & Ralston, J.V. (1994). Automaticity in speech perception: Some speech/ nonspeech comparisons. Phonetica, 51, 195-209.
11. Julesz, B., & Hirsh, I.J. (1972). Visual and auditory perception - An essay of comparison. In E.E. David & P.B. Denes (Eds.), Human communication: A unified view (pp. 283-340). New York: McGraw-Hill.
12. Kingston, J., & Kirk, C.J. (1997). Must sine-wave analogues be perceived as implicit speech to be perceived categorically? Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 3091.
13. Klatt, D.H. (1989). Review of selected models of speech perception. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp. 169-226). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Liberman, A.M., Isenberg, D., & Rakerd, B. (1981). Duplex perception of cues for stop consonants: Evidence for a phonetic mode. Perception & Psychophysics, 30, 133-143.
15. Macmillan, N.A., & Creelman, C.D. (1991). Detection theory: A user's guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16. Peterson, G.E., & Barney, H.L. (1952). Control methods used in a study of the vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24, 175-184.
17. Rand, T.C. (1974). Dichotic release from masking for speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 55, 678-680.
18. Remez, R.E., Rubin, P.E., Berns, S.M., Pardo, J.S., & Lang, J.M. (1994). On the perceptual organization of speech. Psychological Review, 101, 129-156.
19. Remez, R.E., Rubin, P.E., Nygaard, L.C., & Howell, W.A. (1987). Perceptual normalization of vowels produced by sinusoidal voices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 40-61.
20. Remez, R.E., Rubin, P.E., Pisoni, D.B., & Carrell, T.D. (1981). Speech perception without traditional speech cues. Science, 212, 947-950.
21. Rubin, P.E. (1980). Sinewave synthesis. Internal memorandum, Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, CT.
22. Sawusch, J.R., & Gagnon, D.A. (1995). Auditory coding, cues, and coherence in phonetic perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 635-652.
23. Shannon, R.V., Zeng, F., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J., & Ekelid, M. (1995). Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science, 270, 303-304.
24. Whalen, D.H., & Liberman, A.M. (1987). Speech perception takes precedence over nonspeech perception. Science, 237, 169-171.
25. Whalen, D.H., & Liberman, A.M. (1996). Limits on phonetic integration in duplex perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 857-870.
26. Xu, Y., Liberman, A.M., & Whalen, D.H. (1997). On the immediacy of phonetic perception. Psychological Science, 8, 358-362.