Listening to different speakers: On the time-course of perceptual compensation for vocal-tract characteristics

Neuropsychologia

Volumn 49, Issue 14, 2011, Pages 3831-3846

  Sjerps, Matthias J ^a   Mitterer, Holger ^a   McQueen, James M ^a,b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Event related potential (ERP); N1; Speech perception; Vowel normalization

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSCIOUSNESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DUTCH; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; ETHNIC GROUP; EVOKED CORTICAL RESPONSE; FEMALE; FREQUENCY MODULATION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; RESPONSE TIME; SPEECH ARTICULATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RATE; VOCALIZATION; VOWEL;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; BRAIN MAPPING; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMANS; MALE; PHONETICS; REACTION TIME; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 81855176075     PISSN: 00283932     EISSN: 18733514     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.09.044     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Adank P., Smits R., van Hout R. A comparison of vowel normalization procedures for language variation research. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2004, 116(5):3099-3107.
2. Adank P., van Hout R., Smits R. An acoustic description of the vowels of Northern and Southern Standard Dutch. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2004, 116(3):1729-1738.
3. Barr D.J. Analyzing 'visual world' eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 59(4):457-474.
4. Bates D.M., Sarkar D. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (version 0.999375-27) [software application] 2007.
5. Bien H., Lagemann L., Dobel C., Zwitserlood P. Implicit and explicit categorization of speech sounds - Dissociating behavioural and neurophysiological data. European Journal of Neuroscience 2009, 30(2):339-346.
6. Boersma P., Weenink D. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer 2005.
7. Broadbent D.E., Ladefoged P. Vowel judgements and adaptation level. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 1960, 151(944):384-399.
8. Cacace A.T., McFarland D.J. Quantifying signal-to-noise ratio of mismatch negativity in humans. Neuroscience Letters 2003, 341(3):251-255.
9. Celsis P., Doyon B., Boulanouar K., Pastor J., Demonet J.F., Nespoulous J.L. ERP correlates of phoneme perception in speech and sound contexts. Neuroreport 1999, 10(7):1523-1527.
10. Diesch E., Eulitz C., Hampson S., Ross B. The neurotopography of vowels as mirrored by evoked magnetic field measurements. Brain and Language 1996, 53(2):143-168.
11. Dixon P. Models of accuracy in repeated-measures designs. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 59(4):447-456.
12. Friedman D., Cycowicz Y.M., Gaeta H. The novelty P3: An event-related brain potential (ERP) sign of the brain's evaluation of novelty. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 2001, 25(4):355-373.
13. Hillenbrand J., Getty L.A., Clark M.J., Wheeler K. Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1995, 97:3099-3111.
14. Holt L.L. Temporally nonadjacent nonlinguistic sounds affect speech categorization. Psychological Science 2005, 16(4):305-312.
15. Holt L.L. The mean matters: Effects of statistically defined nonspeech spectral distributions on speech categorization. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2006, 120(5):2801-2817.
16. Johnson K. Speaker normalization in speech perception. The handbook of speech perception 2005, 363-389. Blackwell, Oxford. D.B. Pisoni, R.E. Remez (Eds.).
17. Johnson K., Strand E.A., D'Imperio M. Auditory-visual integration of talker gender in vowel perception. Journal of Phonetics 1999, 27(4):359-384.
18. Joos M. Acoustic phonetics. Language 1948, 24(2):5-136.
19. Kiefte M., Kluender K.R. Absorption of reliable spectral characteristics in auditory perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2008, 123(1):366-376.
20. Kirk E.C., Smith D.W. Protection from acoustic trauma is not a primary function of the medial olivocochlear efferent system. Jaro-Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology 2003, 4(4):445-465.
21. Kluender K.R., Coady J.A., Kiefte M. Sensitivity to change in perception of speech. Speech Communication 2003, 41(1):59-69.
22. Kluender K.R., Kiefte M.J. Speech perception within a biologically realistic information-theoretic framework. Handbook of psycholinguistics 2006, 153-199. Elsevier, London. 2nd ed. M.A. Gernsbacher, M. Traxler (Eds.).
23. Ladefoged P., Broadbent D.E. Information conveyed by vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1957, 29:98-104.
24. Liegeois-Chauvel C., Musolino A., Chauvel P. Localization of the primary auditory area in man. Brain 1991, 114:139-153.
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(2):1134-1140.
26. Makela A.M., Alku P., Tiitinen H. The auditory N1m reveals the left-hemispheric representation of vowel identity in humans. Neuroscience Letters 2003, 353(2):111-114.
27. May B.J., Budelis J., Niparko J.K. Behavioral studies of the olivocochlear efferent system - Learning to listen in noise. Archives of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery 2004, 130(5):660-664.
28. McCarthy G., Donchin E. A metric for thought - A comparison of P300 latency and reaction time. Science 1981, 211(4477):77-80.
29. Mitterer H. Is vowel normalization independent of lexical processing?. Phonetica 2006, 63(4):209-229.
30. Monahan P.J., Idsardi W.J. Auditory sensitivity to formant ratios: Toward an account of vowel normalisation. Language and Cognitive Processes 2010, 25(6):808-839.
31. Näätänen R., Lehtokoski A., Lennes M., Cheour M., Huotilainen M., Iivonen A., et al. Language-specific phoneme representations revealed by electric and magnetic brain responses. Nature 1997, 385(6615):432-434.
32. Näätänen R., Winkler I. The concept of auditory stimulus representation in cognitive neuroscience. Psychological Bulletin 1999, 125(6):826-859.
33. Nearey T.M. Static, dynamic, and relational properties in vowel perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1989, 85(5):2088-2113.
34. Obleser J., Elbert T., Lahiri A., Eulitz C. Cortical representation of vowels reflects acoustic dissimilarity determined by formant frequencies. Cognitive Brain Research 2003, 15(3):207-213.
35. Obleser J., Eulitz C., Lahiri A. Magnetic brain response mirrors extraction of phonological features from spoken vowels. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2004, 16(1):31-39.
36. Poeppel D., Phillips C., Yellin E., Rowley H.A., Roberts T.P.L., Marantz A. Processing of vowels in supratemporal auditory cortex. Neuroscience Letters 1997, 221(2-3):145-148.
37. Roberts T.P.L., Flagg E.J., Gage N.M. Vowel categorization induces departure of M100 latency from acoustic prediction. Neuroreport 2004, 15(10):1679-1682.
38. Saarinen J., Paavilainen P., Schoger E., Tervaniemi M., Näätänen R. Representation of abstract attributes of auditory stimuli in the human brain. Neuroreport 1992, 3(12):1149-1151.
39. Sharma A., Dorman M.F. Neurophysiologic correlates of cross-language phonetic perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2000, 107(5):2697-2703.
40. Sjerps M.J., Mitterer H., McQueen J.M. Constraints on the processes responsible for the extrinsic normalization of vowels. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 2011, 73:1195-1215.
41. Snyder E., Hillyard S.A., Galambos R. Similarities and differences among the P3 waves to detected signals in 3 modalities. Psychophysiology 1980, 17(2):112-122.
42. Stilp C.E., Alexander J.M., Kiefte M.J., Kluender K.R. Auditory color constancy: Calibration to reliable spectral properties across nonspeech context and targets. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 2010, 72:470-480.
43. Summerfield Q., Haggard M., Foster J., Gray S. Perceiving vowels from uniform spectra: Phonetic exploration of an auditory aftereffect. Perception & Psychophysics 1984, 35(3):203-213.
44. Tavabi K., Elling L., Dobel C., Pantev C., Zwitserlood P. Effects of place of articulation changes on auditory neural activity: A magnetoencephalography study. PLoS One 2009, 4(2):e4452.
45. Tavabi K., Obleser J., Dobel C., Pantev C. Auditory evoked fields differentially encode speech features: An MEG investigation of the P50m and N100m time courses during syllable processing. European Journal of Neuroscience 2007, 25(10):3155-3162.
46. Tiitinen H., Makela A., Makinen V., May P., Alku P. Disentangling the effects of phonation and articulation: Hemispheric asymmetries in the auditory N1m response of the human brain. BMC Neuroscience 2005, 6(1):62.
47. Toscano J.C., McMurray B., Dennhardt J., Luck S.J. Continuous perception and graded categorization electrophysiological evidence for a linear relationship between the acoustic signal and perceptual encoding of speech. Psychological Science 2010, 21(10):1532-1540.
48. Van Nierop D.J.P.J., Pols L.C.W., Plomp R. Frequency analysis of Dutch vowels from 25 female speakers. Acustica 1973, 29(2):110-118.
49. Watkins A.J. Central, auditory mechanisms of perceptual compensation for spectral-envelope distortion. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1991, 90(6):2942-2955.
50. Watkins A.J., Makin S.J. Perceptual compensation for speaker differences and for spectral-envelope distortion. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1994, 96(3):1263-1282.
51. Watkins A.J., Makin S.J. Effects of spectral contrast on perceptual compensation for spectral-envelope distortion. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1996, 99(6):3749-3757.
52. Wilson J.P. An auditory after-image. Frequency analysis and periodicity detection in hearing 1970, 303-318. Sijthoff, Leiden. R. P1omp, G.F. Smoorenburg (Eds.).
53. Winkler I., Lehtokoski A., Alku P., Vainio M., Czigler I., Csepe V., et al. Pre-attentive detection of vowel contrasts utilizes both phonetic and auditory memory representations. Cognitive Brain Research 1999, 7(3):357-369.