Mandarin speech perception by ear and eye follows a universal principle

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 66, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 820-836

  Chen, Trevor H ^a   Massaro, Dominic W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 7944225111     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03194976     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. ANDERSON, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.
2. BEST, C. (1993). Emergence of language-specific constraints in perception of non-native speech: A window on early phonological development. In B. de Boysson-Bardies & S. de Schonen (Eds.), Developmental neurocognition: Speech and face processing in the first year of life (pp. 289-304). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
3. BURNHAM, D., LAU, S., TAM, H., & SCHOKNECHT, C. (2001). Visual discrimination of Cantonese tone by tonal but non-Cantonese speakers, and by non-tonal language speakers. In Proceedings of International Conference on Auditory-Visual Speech Processing (pp. 155-160), Sydney, Australia. Available from http://www.isca-speech.org.archive/avsp98.
4. CHANDLER, J. P. (1969). Subroutine STEPIT: Finds local minima of a smooth function of several parameters. Behavioral Science, 14, 81-82.
5. COHEN, M. M., & MASSARO, D. W. (1990). Synthesis of visible speech. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 22, 260-263.
6. CUTLER, A., DEMUTH, K., & MCQUEEN, J. M. (2002). Universality versus language-specificity in listening to running speech. Psychological Science, 13, 258-262.
7. DE GELDER, B., & VROOMEN, J. (1992). Auditory and visual speech perception in alphabetic and non-alphabetic Chinese-Dutch bilinguals. In R. J. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 413-426). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
8. DIEHL, R. L., & KLUENDER, K. R. (1987). On the categorization of speech sounds. In S. Harnad (Ed.), Categorical perception (pp. 226-253). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. DONOVAN, J. (2001). Feminist theory: The intellectual traditions (3rd ed.). New York: Continuum.
10. FLEGE, J. E. (2003). Assessing constraints on second-language segmental production and perception. In A. Meyer & N. Schiller (Eds.), Phonetics and phonology in language: Comprehension and Production: Differences and Similarities. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
11. FOWLER, C. A. (1996). Listeners do hear sounds, not tongues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99, 1730-1741.
12. GALLISTEL, C. R. (2002). Language and spatial frames of reference in mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 321-322.
13. GOURAUD, H. (1971). Continuous shading of curved surfaces. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-20, 623-628.
14. HAYASHI, Y., & SEKIYAMA, K. (1998). Native-foreign language effect in the McGurk effect: A test with Chinese and Japanese. In Proceedings of Auditory-Visual Speech Processing 1998 (pp. 61-66), Sydney, Australia. Available from http://www.isca-speech.org/archive/avsp98.
15. JACOBS, A. M., & GRAINGER, J. (1994). Models of visual word recognition: Sampling the state of the art. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 1311-1334.
16. KLATT, D. H. (1980). Software for a cascade/parallel formant synthesizer. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 971-995.
17. LIBERMAN, A. M. (1996). Speech: A special code. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. LIBERMAN, A. M., & MATTINGLY, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, 21, 1-36.
19. MASSARO, D. W. (1987). Speech perception by ear and eye: A paradigm for psychological inquiry. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. MASSARO, D. W. (1988). Some criticisms of connectionist models of human performance. Journal of Memory & Language, 27, 213-234.
21. MASSARO, D. W. (1989). Testing between the TRACE model and the fuzzy logical model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 398-421.
22. MASSARO, D. W. (1998). Perceiving talking faces: From speech perception to a behavioral principle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. MASSARO, D. W., COHEN, M. M., & SMEELE, P. M. T. (1995). Cross-linguistic comparisons in the integration of visual and auditory speech. Memory & Cognition, 23, 113-131.
24. MASSARO, D. W., & FRIEDMAN, D. (1990). Models of integration given multiple sources of information. Psychological Review, 97, 225-252.
25. MASSARO, D. W., TSUZAKI, M., COHEN, M. M., GESI, A., & HEREDIA, R. (1993). Bimodal speech perception: An examination across languages. Journal of Phonetics, 21, 445-478.
26. MASSARO, D. W., WELDON, M. S., & KITZIS, S. N. (1991). Integration of orthographic and semantic information in memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 17, 277-287.
27. MATTINGLY, I. G., & STUDDERT-KENNEDY, M. (EDS.) (1991). Modularity and the motor theory of speech perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. MOVELLAN, J. R. & MCCLELLAND, J. L. (2001). The Morton-Massaro law of information integration: Implications for models of perception. Psychological Review, 108, 113-148.
29. NEARBY, T. M. (1992). Context effects in a double-weak theory of speech perception. Language & Speech, 35, 153-171.
30. ODEN, G. C., & MASSARO, D. W. (1978). Integration of featural information in speech perception. Psychological Review, 85, 172-191.
31. PLATT, J. R. (1964). Strong inference. Science, 146, 347-353.
32. POPPER, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books.
33. ROBERT-RIBES, J., SCHWARTZ, J.-L., & ESCUDIER, P. (1995). A comparison of models for fusion of the auditory and visual sensors in speech perception. Artificial Intelligence Review, 9, 323-346.
34. SEKIYAMA, K. (1997). Cultural and linguistic factors in audiovisual speech processing: The McGurk effect in Chinese subjects. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 73-80.
35. SEKIYAMA, K., & TOHKURA, Y. (1989). Effects of lip-read information on auditory perception of Japanese syllables [Abstract]. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85(1, Suppl.), 138.
36. SEKIYAMA, K., & TOHKURA, Y. (1991). McGurk effect in non-English listeners: Few visual effects for Japanese subjects hearing Japanese syllables of high auditory intelligibility. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 90, 1797-1805.
37. SEKIYAMA, K., & TOHKURA, Y. (1993). Inter-language differences in the influence of visual cues in speech perception. Journal of Phonetics, 21, 427-444.
38. TIIPPANA, K., SAMS, M., & ANDERSEN, T. S. (2001). Visual attention influences audiovisual speech perception. In D. W. Massaro, J. Light, & K. Geraci (Eds.), Proceedings of Auditory-Visual Speech Processing (pp. 167-171). Aalborg. Available from http://www.isca_speech.org/archive/avsp01.
39. VAN IJZENDOORN, M. H., & SAGI, A. (1999). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: Universal and contextual dimensions. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 713-734). New York: Guilford.
40. ZADEH, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information & Control, 8, 338-353.