Compensation for coarticulation: Disentangling auditory and gestural theories of perception of coarticulatory effects in speech

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 1005-1015

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

Author keywords

Articulatory; Compensation for coarticulation; Direct realism; Speech perception; Tamil

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; HABITUATION; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LIP READING; PHONATION; PHONETICS; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; SEMANTICS; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ATTENTION; HABITUATION, PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGIC; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LIPREADING; PHONATION; PHONETICS; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; SEMANTICS; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 77955815961     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0018391     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Boersma P., Weenink D. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.4.16) [Computer program] 2006, Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/.
2. Diehl R.L., Kluender K.R., Walsh M.A., Parker E.M. Auditory enhancement in speech perception and phonology. Cognition and the symbolic processes: Applied and ecological perspectives 1991, 59-76. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. R. Hoffman, D. Palermo (Eds.).
3. Diehl R.L., Lindblom B., Creeger C.P. Increasing realism of auditory representations yields further insights into vowel phonetics. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Science 2003, 2:1381-1384. Causal Publications, Adelaide.
4. Diehl R.L., Lotto A.J., Holt L.L. Speech perception. Annual Review of Psychology 2004, 55:149-179.
5. Elman J.L., McClelland J.L. Exploiting the lawful variability in the speech wave. Invariance and variability of speech processes 1986, 360-380. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. J.S. Perkell, D.H. Klatt (Eds.).
6. Fowler C.A. An event approach to a theory of speech perception from a direct-realist perspective. Journal of Phonetics 1986, 14:3-28.
7. Fowler C.A. Invariants, specifiers, cues: An investigation of locus equations as information for place of articulation. Perception & Psychophysics 1994, 55:597-610.
8. Fowler C.A. Listeners do hear sounds, not tongues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1996, 99:1730-1741.
9. Fowler C.A. Compensation for coarticulation reflects gesture perception, not spectral contrast. Perception and Psychophysics 2006, 68:161-177.
10. Fowler C.A., Brown J., Mann V. Contrast effects do not underlie effects of preceding liquid consonants on stop identification in humans. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2000, 26:877-888.
11. Fowler C.A., Dekle D. Listening with eye and hand: Crossmodal contributions to speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1991, 17:816-828.
12. Fowler C.A., Best C.T., McRoberts G.W. Young infants' perception of liquid co-articulatory influences on following stop consonants. Perception and Psychophysics 1990, 48(6):559-570.
13. Gibson J.J. The senses considered as perceptual systems 1966, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
14. Gibson J.J. The ecological approach to visual perception 1979, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
15. Holt L.L. Temporally non-adjacent non-linguistic sounds affect speech categorization. Psychological Science 2005, 16:305-312.
16. Holt L.L. The mean matters: Effects of statistically defined nonspeech spectral distributions on speech categorization. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 2006, 120:2801-2817.
17. Holt L.L., Lotto A.J. Behavioral examinations of the neural mechanisms of speech context effects. Hearing Research 2002, 167:156-169.
18. Kluender K.R., Diehl R.L., Killeen P.R. Japanese Quail can form phonetic categories. Science 1987, 237:1195-1197.
19. Kuhl P.K., Miller J.D. Speech perception by the chinchilla: Identification functions for synthetic VOT stimuli. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1978, 63:905-917.
20. Liberman A.M., Cooper F.S., Shankweiler D.P., Studdert-Kennedy M. Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review 1967, 74:431-461.
21. Liberman A.M., Delattre P.C., Cooper F.S. The role of selected stimulus variables in the perception of the unvoiced-stop consonants. American Journal of Psychology 1952, 65:497-516.
22. Liberman A.M., Delattre P.C., Cooper F.S., Gerstman L.J. The role of consonant-vowel transitions in the perception of the stop and nasal consonants. Psychological Monographs 1954, 68(8, Whole No. 379).
23. Liberman A.M., Mattingly I.G. The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition 1985, 21:1-36.
24. Lotto A.J., Kluender K.R. General contrast effects of speech perception: Effect of preceding liquid on stop consonant identification. Perception & Psychophysics 1998, 60:602-619.
25. Lotto A.J., Kluender K.R., Holt L.L. Perceptual compensation for coarticulation by Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1997, 102:1134-1140.
26. Lotto A.J., Sullivan S.C., Holt L.L. Central locus for non-speech effects on phonetic identification. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2003, 113:53-56.
27. Mann V.A. Influence of preceding liquid on stop-consonant perception. Perception & Psychophysics 1980, 28:407-412.
28. Mann V.A. Distinguishing universal and language-dependent levels of speech perception: Evidence from Japanese listeners' perception of English " l" and " r," Cognition 1986, 24:169-196.
29. Mann V.A., Repp B.H. Influence of vocalic context on perception of the [s]-[sh] distinction. Perception & Psychophysics 1980, 28:213-228.
30. McGurk H., MacDonald J. Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 1976, 264:746-748.
31. Mitterer H. On the causes of compensation for coarticulation: Evidence for phonological mediation. Perception & Psychophysics 2006, 68:1227-1240.
32. Narayanan S., Byrd D., Kaun A. Geometry, kinematics, and acoustics of Tamil liquid consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1999, 106:1993-2007.
33. Nusbaum H.C., Magnuson J.S. Talker normalization: Phonetic constancy as a cognitive process. Talker variability in speech processing 1997, 109-132. Academic Press, San Diego. K. Johnson, J.W. Mullennix (Eds.).
34. Pastore R.E., Li X.F., Layer J.K. Categorical perception of nonspeech chirps and bleats. Perception and Psychophysics 1990, 48:151-156.
35. Pisoni D.B. Identification and discrimination of the relative onset time of two component tones: Implications for voicing perception in stops. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1977, 61:1352-1361.
36. Reed E.S. Encountering the world 1996, Oxford University Press, New York.
37. Samuel A.G., Pitt M.A. Lexical activation (and other factors) can mediate compensation for coarticulation. Journal of Memory and Language 2003, 48:416-434.
38. 0 cues depend on intonation: The case of the rise after voiced stops. Phonetica 1986, 43:76-92.
39. Stephens J.D.W., Holt L.L. Preceding phonetic context affects perception of nonspeech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2003, 114:3036-3039.
40. Stevens K.N., Blumstein S.E. The search of for invariant acoustic correlates of phonetic features. Perspectives on the study of speech 1981, 1-38. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. P.D. Eimas, J. Miller (Eds.).
41. Viswanathan N., Fowler C.A., Magnuson J.S. A critical examination of the spectral contrast account of compensation for coarticulation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2009, 16:74-79.
42. Wade T., Holt L.L. Effects of later-occurring non-linguistic sounds on speech categorization. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2005, 118:1701-1710.