A critical examination of the spectral contrast account of compensation for coarticulation

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 74-79

  Viswanathan, Navin ^a,b   Fowler, Carol A ^a,b   Magnuson, James S ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

^b HASKINS LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; HEARING; HUMAN; PHONETICS; REACTION TIME; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ATTENTION; HUMANS; PHONETICS; PITCH PERCEPTION; REACTION TIME; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 62649093151     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/PBR.16.1.74     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Boersma, P. (2001). Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5, 341-345.
2. Fowler, C. A. (1990). Sound-producing sources as objects of perception: Rate normalization and nonspeech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 1236-1249.
3. Fowler, C. A. (2006). Compensation for coarticulation reflects gesture perception, not spectral contrast. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 161-177.
4. Fowler, C. A., Brown, J., & Mann, V. (2000). Contrast effects do not underlie effects of preceding liquid consonants on stop identification in humans. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 877-888.
5. Fowler, C. A., & Smith, M. R. (1986). Speech perception as "vector analysis": An approach to the problems of invariance and segmentation. In J. S. Perkell & D. H. Klatts (Eds.), Invariance and variability in speech processes (pp. 123-139). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Holt, L. L. (1999). Auditory constraints on speech perception: An examination of spectral contrast. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
7. Holt, L. L., Lotto, A. J., & Kluender, K. R. (2000). Neighboring spectral content influences vowel identification. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108, 710-722.
8. Holt, L. L., Stephens, J. D., & Lotto, A. J. (2005). A critical evaluation of visually moderated phonetic context effects. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 1102-1112.
9. Lotto, A. J., & Holt, L. L. (2006). Putting phonetic context effects into context: A commentary on Fowler (2006). Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 178-183.
10. Lotto, A. J., & Kluender, K. R. (1998). General contrast effects of speech perception: Effect of preceding liquid on stop consonant identification. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 602-619.
11. Mann, V. A. (1980). Influence of preceding liquid on stop-consonant perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 28, 407-412.
12. Mann, V. A., & Repp, B. H. (1981). Influence of preceding fricative on stop consonant perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 69, 548-558.
13. Mitterer, H. (2006). On the causes of compensation for coarticulation: Evidence for phonological mediation. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 1227-1240.
14. 0 segmental cues depend on intonation: The case of the rise after voiced stops. Phonetica, 43, 76-92.
15. Stephens, J. D. W., & Holt, L. L. (2003). Preceding phonetic context affects perception of nonspeech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114, 3036-3039.
16. Viswanathan, N., Magnuson, J. S., & Fowler, C. A. (2008). Compensation for coarticulation: Disentangling auditory and gestural theories of perception of coarticulatory effects in speech. Manuscript submitted for publication.
17. Wade, T., & Holt, L. L. (2005). Effects of later-occurring non-linguistic sounds on speech categorization. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 1701-1710.