Cochlea-scaled entropy, not consonants, vowels, or time, best predicts speech intelligibility

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 107, Issue 27, 2010, Pages 12387-12392

  Stilp, Christian E ^a   Kluender, Keith R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Auditory perception; Efficient coding; Linguistics; Phonetics; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; COCHLEA POTENTIAL; CONSONANT; ENTROPY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LINGUISTICS; NORMAL HUMAN; PHONETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH ARTICULATION; VOWEL;

AUDITORY PERCEPTION; COCHLEA; COMPREHENSION; HUMANS; PHONETICS; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SPEECH; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77955464549     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0913625107     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Adams MJ (1981) Perception of Print, eds Tzeng OJL, Singer H (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ), pp 197-221.
2. Lee H-W, Rayner K, Pollatsek A (2001) The relative contribution of consonants and vowels to word identification during reading. J Mem Lang 44:189-205. (Pubitemid 33379930)
3. Shimron J (1993) The role of vowels in reading: A review of studies of English and Hebrew. Psychol Bull 114:52-67.
4. Cole R, Yan Y, Mak B, Fanty M, Bailey T (1996) The contribution of consonants versus vowels to word recognition in fluent speech. Proc Internatl Conf Acoustics Speech Signal Processing, 853-856.
5. Kewley-Port D, Burkle TZ, Lee JH (2007) Contribution of consonant versus vowel information to sentence intelligibility for young normal-hearing and elderly hearingimpaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 122:2365-2375. (Pubitemid 47493362)
6. Fogerty D, Kewley-Port D (2009) Perceptual contributions of the consonant-vowel boundary to sentence intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am 126:847-857.
7. Owren MJ, Cardillo GC (2006) The relative roles of vowels and consonants in discriminating talker identity versus word meaning. J Acoust Soc Am 119:1727-1739.
8. Liberman AM, Harris KS, Hoffman HS, Griffith BC (1957) The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. J. Exp Psychol 54:358-368.
9. Jenkins JJ, Strange W, Edman TR (1983) Identification of vowels in "vowelless" syllables. Percept Psychophys 34:441-450.
10. Sussman HM, McCaffrey HA, Matthews SA (1991) An investigation of locus equations as a source of relational invariance for stop place categorization. J Acoust Soc Am 90:1309-1325.
11. Kluender KR, Stilp CE, Rogers TT (2009) Vowel-inherent spectral change enhances adaptive dispersion. J Acoust Soc Am 125:2695.
12. Garofolo JS, et al. (1993) TIMIT Acoustic-Phonetic Continuous Speech Corpus (Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia).
13. Lee JH, Kewley-Port D (2009) Intelligibility of interrupted sentences at subsegmental levels in young normal-hearing and elderly hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 125:1153-1163.
14. Voss RF, Clarke J (1975) '1/f noise' in music and speech. Nature 258:317-318.
15. Kluender KR, Coady JA, Kiefte M (2003) Sensitivity to change in perception of speech. Speech Commun 41:59-69.
16. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379-423.
17. Attneave F (1954) Some informational aspects of visual perception. Psychol Rev 61:183-193.
18. Barlow HB (1961) Sensory Communication, ed Rosenblith WA (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), pp 53-85.
19. Field DJ (1987) Relations between the statistics of natural images and the response properties of cortical cells. J Opt Soc Am 4:2379-2394.
20. Olshausen BA, Field DJ (1996) Emergence of simple-cell receptive field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images. Nature 381:607-609.
21. Schwartz O, Simoncelli EP (2001) Natural signal statistics and sensory gain control. Nat Neurosci 4:819-825. (Pubitemid 32702514)
22. Simoncelli EP (2003) Vision and the statistics of the visual environment. Curr Opin Neurobiol 13:144-149.
23. Overath T, et al. (2007) An information theoretic characterisation of auditory encoding. PLoS Biol 5:e288.
24. Kluender KR, Kiefte M (2006) Handbook of Psycholinguistics, eds Gernsbacher MA, Traxler M (Elsevier, London), pp 153-199.
25. Kluender KR, Alexander JM (2008) The Senses: A Comprehensive Reference, eds Dallos P, Oertel, D. (Academic, San Diego), pp 829-860.
26. Glasberg BR, Moore BCJ (1990) Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notchednoise data. Hear Res 47:103-138. (Pubitemid 20244652)
27. Patterson RD, Nimmo-Smith I, Weber DL, Milroy R (1982) The deterioration of hearing with age: Frequency selectivity, the critical ratio, the audiogram, and speech threshold. J Acoust Soc Am 72:1788-1803.
28. Ohala JJ (1990) There is no interface between phonology and phonetics: A personal view. J Phonetics 18:153-171.
29. Clements GN (2009) Contemporary Views on Architecture and Representations in Phonology, eds Raimy E, Cairns CE (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), pp 165-175.
30. Edwards HT (1997) Applied Phonetics: The Sounds of American English (Singular, San Diego), 2nd Ed.
31. Nearey TM, Assmann P (1986) Modeling the role of vowel inherent spectral change in vowel identification. J Acoust Soc Am 80:1297-1308.
32. Hillenbrand JM, Nearey TM (1999) Identification of resynthesized /hVd/ utterances: effects of formant contour. J Acoust Soc Am 105:3509-3523.
33. Kewley-Port D (1983) Time-varying features as correlates of place of articulation in stop consonants. J Acoust Soc Am 73:322-335. (Pubitemid 13507219)
34. Stevens KN (2002) Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features. J Acoust Soc Am 111:1872-1891.
35. Boothroyd A, Nittrouer S (1988) Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 84:101-114.
36. van Rooij JCGM, Plomp R (1991) The effect of linguistic entropy on speech perception in noise in young and elderly listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 90:2985-2991.
37. Linell P (2005) The Written Language Bias in Linguistics: Its Nature, Origins and Transformations (Routledge, Oxford).
38. Faber A (1992) The Linguistics of Literacy, eds Downing P, Lima S, Noonan M (John Benjamins, Amsterdam), pp 111-134.
39. Port RF, Leary A (2005) Against formal phonology. Language 85:927-964.
40. Port R (2006) Second Language Speech Learning: The Role of Language Experience in Speech Perception and Production, eds Munro M, Bohn O-S (John Benjamins, Amsterdam), pp 349-365.
41. Port R (2007) How are words stored in memory? Beyond phones and phonemes. N Ideas Psychol 25:143-170.
42. Port R (2008) All is prosody: Phones and phonemes are the ghosts of letters. Proc 4th Internal Conf Speech Prosody, 7-16.
43. Palmeri TJ, Goldinger SD, Pisoni DB (1993) Episodic encoding of voice attributes and recognition memory for spoken words. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 19:309-328.
44. Goldinger SD, Azuma T (2003) Puzzle-solving science: The quixotic quest for units in speech perception. J Phonetics 31:305-320.
45. Leung HC, Zue VW (1984) A procedure for automatic alignment of phonetic transcriptions with continuous speech. Proc Internatl Conf Acoustics Speech Signal Processing 2.7.1-2.7.4.
46. Seneff S, Zue VW (1988) Transcription and alignment of the TIMIT Database. Unpublished technical report (MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics, Cambridge).
47. Zue VW, Seneff S, Glass J (1990) Speech Database Development at MIT: TIMIT and Beyond. Speech Commun 9:351-356.