Does perceptual learning in speech reflect changes in phonetic category representation or decision bias?

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 70, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 604-618

  Clarke Davidson, Constance M ^a   Luce, Paul A ^a   Sawusch, James R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; PERCEPTION; PHONETICS; PRESCHOOL CHILD; SPEECH;

CHILD, PRESCHOOL; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PERCEPTION; PHONETICS; SPEECH; VERBAL LEARNING;

EID: 48049092624     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/PP.70.4.604     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. BAKEMAN, R. (2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 379-384.
2. BERTELSON, P., VROOMEN, J., & DE GELDER, B. (2003). Visual recalibration of auditory speech identification: A McGurk aftereffect. Psychological Science, 14, 592-597.
3. BOERSMA, P., & WEENINK, D. (2006). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.3.13) [Computer program]. Available from www.praat.org/.
4. BRAIDA, L. D., & DURLACH, N. I. (1972). Intensity perception: II. Resolution in one-interval paradigms. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 51, 483-502.
5. CLARKE, C. M., & GARRETT, M. F. (2004). Rapid adaptation to foreign-accented English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116, 3647-3658.
6. COHEN, J. D., MACWHINNEY, B., FLATT, M., & PROVOST, J. (1993). PsyScope: A new interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 25, 257-271.
7. DURLACH, N. I., &BRAIDA, L. D. (1969). Intensity perception: I. Preliminary theory of intensity resolution. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 46, 372-383.
8. EISNER, F., & MCQUEEN, J. M. (2005). The specificity of perceptual learning in speech processing. Perception & Psvchophysics, 67, 224-238.
9. EISNER, F., & MCQUEEN, J. M. (2006). Perceptual learning in speech: Stability over time. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 1950-1953.
10. GREEN, D. M., & SWETS, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psvchophysics. New York: Krieger.
11. KRALJIC, T., & SAMUEL, A. G. (2005). Perceptual learning for speech: Is there a return to normal? Cognitive Psychology, 51, 141-178.
12. KRALJIC, T., & SAMUEL, A. G. (2006). Generalization in perceptual learning for speech. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 262-268.
13. KRALJIC, T., & SAMUEL, A. G. (2007). Perceptual adjustments to multiple speakers. Journal of Memory & Language, 56, 1-15.
14. KUČERA, H., & FRANCIS, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence: Brown University Press.
15. LADEFOGED, P. (1989). A note on "Information conveyed by vowels." University of California Working Papers in Phonetics, 72, 161-163.
16. LADEFOGED, P., & BROADBENT, D. E. (1957). Information conveyed by vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 29, 98-104.
17. LEACH, L., & SAMUEL, A. G. (2007). Lexical configuration and lexical engagement: When adults learn new words. Cognitive Psychology, 55, 306-353.
18. LIBERMAN, A. M., HARRIS, K. S., HOFFMAN, H. S., & GRIFFITH, B. C. (1957). The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 358-368.
19. LUCE, R. D. (1963). Detection and recognition. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (pp. 103-189). New York: Wiley.
20. MASSARO, D. W. (1989). Testing between the TRACE model and the fuzzy logical model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 398-421.
21. MCGARR, N. S. (1983). The intelligibility of deaf speech to experienced and inexperienced listeners. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 26, 451-458.
22. MCQUEEN, J. M., CUTLER, A., & NORRIS, D. (2006). Phonological abstraction in the mental lexicon. Cognitive Science, 30, 1113-1126.
23. MCQUEEN, J. M., NORRIS, D., & CUTLER, A. (2006). The dynamic nature of speech perception. Language & Speech, 49, 101-112.
24. NEWMAN, R. S., CLOUSE, S. A., & BURNHAM, J. L. (2001). The perceptual consequences of within-talker variability in fricative production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 1181-1196.
25. NORRIS, D., MCQUEEN, J. M., & CUTLER, A. (2003). Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 204-238.
26. NYGAARD, L. C., & PISONI, D. B. (1998). Talker-specific learning in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 355-376.
27. NYGAARD, L. C., SOMMERS, M. S., & PISONI, D. B. (1994). Speech perception as a talker-contingent process. Psychological Science, 5, 42-46.
28. OLEJNIK, S., & ALGINA, J. (2003). Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: Measures of effect size for some common research designs. Psychological Methods, 8, 434-447.
29. PITT, M. A. (1995). The locus of the lexical shift in phoneme identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1037-1052.
30. POLLACK, I., & PISONI, D. (1971). On the comparison between identification and discrimination tests in speech perception. Psychonomic Science, 24, 299-300.
31. SAWUSCH, J. R., NUSBAUM, H. C., & SCHWAB, E. C. (1980). Contextual effects in vowel perception II: Evidence for two processing mechanisms. Perception & Psychophysics, 27, 421-434.
32. VAN LINDEN, S., & VROOMEN, J. (2007). Recalibration of phonetic categories by lipread speech versus lexical information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 33, 1483-1494.
33. VITEVITCH, M. S., & LUCE, P. A. (1999). Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory & Language, 40, 374-408.