Word Recognition Reflects Dimension-based Statistical Learning

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 37, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1939-1956

  Idemaru, Kaori ^a   Holt, Lori L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Dimension based learning; Perceptual learning; Speech perception; Statistical learning; Talker adaptation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; HUMAN; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; HUMANS; LEARNING; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 83055184699     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0025641     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Abramson A.S., Lisker L. Relative power of cues: F0 shift versus voice timing. Phonetic linguistics: Essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged 1985, 25-33. Academic, New York, NY. V. Fromkin (Ed.).
2. Bertelson P., Vroomen J., De Gelder B. Visual recalibration of auditory speech identification: A McGurk aftereffect. Psychological Science 2003, 14:592-597. doi: 10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1470.x.
3. Boersma P., Weenink D. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program] 2010, Version 5.0, retrieved from http://www.praat.org/.
4. Castleman W.A., Diehl R.L. Effects of fundamental frequency on medial and final [voice] judgments. Journal of Phonetics 1996, 24:383-398. doi: 10.1006/jpho.1996.0021.
5. Chistovich L.A. Variations of the fundamental voice pitch as a discriminatory cue for consonants. Soviet Physics-Acoustics 1969, 14.
6. Clayards M., Tanenhaus M.K., Aslin R.N., Jacobs R.A. Perception of speech reflects optimal use of probabilistic speech cues. Cognition 2008, 108:804-809. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.004.
7. Coleman J. Discovering the acoustic correlates of phonological contrasts. Journal of Phonetics 2003, 31:351-372. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2003.10.001.
8. Cutler A., McQueen J.M., Butterfield S., Norris D. Prelexically-driven perceptual retuning of phoneme boundaries. Proceedings of Interspeech 2008 (2056) 2008, ISCA, Brisbane, Australia. J. Fletcher, D. Loakes, M. Wagner, R. Goecke (Eds.).
9. Davis M.H., Johnsrude I.S., Hervais-Adelman A., Taylor K., McGettigan C. Lexical information drives perceptual learning of distorted speech: Evidence from the comprehension of noise-vocoded sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General 2005, 134:222-240. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.134.2.222.
10. Dorman M.F., Studdert-Kennedy M., Raphael L.J. Stop-consonant recognition: Release bursts and formant transitions as functionally equivalent, context-dependent cues. Perception & Psychophysics 1977, 22:109-122. doi: 10.3758/BF03198744.
11. Eisner F., McQueen J.M. The specificity of perceptual learning in speech processing. Perception & Psychophysics 2005, 67:224-238. doi: 10.3758/BF03206487.
12. Eisner F., McQueen J.M. Perceptual learning in speech: Stability over time (L). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2006, 119:1950-1953. doi: 10.1121/1.2178721.
13. Emberson, L. L., Liu, R., & Zevin, J. D. (2009). Statistics all the way down: How is statistical learning accomplished using novel, complex sound categories? In N. Taatgen and H. van Rijin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (995-1000). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
14. Fiser J., Berkes P., Orbán G., Lengyel M. Statistically optimal perception and learning: From behavior to neural representations. Trends in Cognitive Science 2010, 14:119-130. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.01.003.
15. Francis A.L., Baldwin K., Nusbaum H.C. Effects of training on attention to acoustic cues. Perception and Psychophysics 2000, 62:1668-1680. doi: 10.3758/BF03212164.
16. Francis A.L., Kaganovich N., Driscoll-Huber C. Cue-specific effects of categorization training on the relative weighting of acoustic cues to consonant voicing in English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2008, 124:1234-1251. doi: 10.1121/1.2945161.
17. Haggard M., Ambler S., Callow M. Pitch as a voicing cue. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1970, 47:613-617. doi: 10.1121/1.1911936.
18. Haggard M.P., Summerfield Q., Roberts M. Psychoacoustical and cultural determinants of phoneme boundaries: Evidence from trading F-0 cues in the voiced-voiceless distinction. Journal of Phonetics 1981, 9(1):49-62.
19. Hervais-Adelman, A., Johnsrude, I. S., Davis, M. H., & Brent, L. (2002). Adaptation to noise-vocoded speech in normal listeners: Perceptual learning depends on lexical feedback. Poster presented at the BSA Short Papers Meeting on Experimental Studies of Hearing and Deafness, University of Sheffield, Sept 16th-17th.
20. Hillenbrand J.M., Clark M.J., Houde R.A. Some effects of duration on vowel recognition. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2000, 108:3013-3022. doi: 10.1121/1.1323463.
21. Holt L., Wade T. Non-linguistic sentence-length precursors affect speech perception: Implications for speaker and rate normalization. Proceedings of From Sound to Sense: Fifty+ Years of Discoveries in Speech Communication 2004, Retrieved from http://www.rle.mit.edu/soundtosense/conference/pdfs/fulltext/Friday%20Posters/FA-Holt-STS.pdf.
22. Holt L.L. Temporally non-adjacent non-linguistic sounds affect speech categorization. Psychological Science 2005, 16:305-312. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01532.x.
23. Holt L.L., Lotto A.J. Cue weighting in auditory categorization: Implications for first and second language acquisition. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2006, 119:3059-3071. doi: 10.1121/1.2188377.
24. Idemaru K., Guion-Anderson S. Relational timing in the production and perception of Japanese singleton and geminate stops. Phonetica 2010, 67:25-46. doi: 10.1159/000319377.
25. Iverson P., Kuhl P.K. Mapping the perceptual magnet effect for speech using signal detection theory and multidimensional scaling. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1995, 97:553-562. doi: 10.1121/1.412280.
26. Iverson P., Kuhl P.K., Akahane-Yamada R., Diesch E., Tohkura Y., Kettermann A., Siebert C. A perceptual interference account of acquisition difficulties for non-native phonemes. Cognition 2003, 87:47-57. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00198-1.
27. Jongman A., Wayland R., Wong S. Acoustic characteristics of English fricatives. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2000, 108:1252-1263. doi: 10.1121/1.1288413.
28. Kim M.R., Lotto A.J. An investigation of acoustic characteristics of Korean stops produced by non-heritage learners. The Korean Language in America 2002, 7:177-188.
29. Kingston J., Diehl R.L. Phonetic knowledge. Language 1994, 70:419-454. doi: 10.2307/416481.
30. Kluender K.R., Walsh M.A. Amplitude rise time and the perception of the voiceless affricate/fricative distinction. Perception & Psychophysics 1992, 51:328-333. doi: 10.3758/BF03211626.
31. Kohler K.J. F0 in the production of lenis and fortis plosives. Phonetica 1982, 39:199-218. doi: 10.1159/000261663.
32. Kohler K.J. Phonetic explanation in phonology: The feature fortis/lenis. Phonetica 1984, 41:150-174. doi: 10.1159/000261721.
33. Kohler K.J. The perception of lenis and fortis plosives in French. A critical re-evaluation. Phonetica 1985, 42:116-123. doi: 10.1159/000261742.
34. Kraljic T., Brennan S.E., Samuel A.G. Accommodating variation: Dialects, idiolects, and speech processing. Cognition 2008, 107:51-81. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.013.
35. Kraljic T., Samuel A.G. Generalization in perceptual learning for speech. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2006, 13:262-268. doi: 10.3758/BF03193841.
36. Kraljic T., Samuel A.G. Perceptual adjustments to multiple speakers. Journal of Memory and Language 2007, 56:1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.010.
37. Lim, S., Lacerda, F., & Holt, L. L. (submitted). Discovering functional units in continuous speech.
38. Lisker L. " Voicing" in English: A catalogue of acoustic features signaling /b/ versus /p/ in trochees. Language and speech 1986, 29:3-11.
39. Lotto A.J., Sato M., Diehl R.L. Mapping the task for the second language learner: The case of Japanese acquisition of /r/ and /l/. Proceedings of From Sound to Sense: Fifty+ Years of Discoveries in Speech Communication 2004, Retrieved from http://www.rle.mit.edu/soundtosense/conference/pdfs/fulltext/Saturday%20Posters/SB-Lotto-STS.pdf.
40. Massaro D.W. Perceiving talking faces: From speech perception to a behavioral principle 1998, The MIT Press.
41. Maye J., Aslin R.N., Tanenhaus M.K. The Weckud Wetch of the Wast: Lexical adaptation to a novel accent. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal 2008, 32:543-562.
42. Maye J., Werker J.F., Gerken L.A. Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination. Cognition 2002, 82:101-111. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00157-3.
43. Mayo C., Turk A. The influence of spectral distinctiveness on acoustic cue weighting in children's and adults' speech perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2005, 118:1730-1741. doi: 10.1121/1.1979451.
44. McClelland J.L., Elman J.L. The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology 1986, 18:1-86. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90015-0.
45. McClelland J.L., Mirman D., Holt L.L. Are there interactive processes in speech perception? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2006, 10:363-369. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.06.007.
46. McQueen J.M., Norris D., Cutler A. Are there really interactive processes in speech perception? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2006, 10:533. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.10.004.
47. Narayan, C. R. (to appear). Developmental perspectives on phonological typology and sound change. In A. C. L. Yu (Ed.), Origins of sound patterns: Approaches to phonologization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
48. Newport E.L., Aslin R.N. Learning at a distance I. Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies. Cognitive Psychology 2004, 48:127-162.
49. Nittrouer S. The role of temporal and dynamic signal components in the perception of syllable-final stop voicing by children and adults. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2004, 115:1777-1790. doi: 10.1121/1.1651192.
50. Norris D., McQueen J.M., Cutler A. Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2000, 23:299-325. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00003241.
51. Norris D., McQueen J.M., Cutler A. Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology 2003, 47:204-238. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00006-9.
52. Oden G.C., Massaro D.W. Integration of featural information in speech perception. Psychological Review 1978, 85:172-191. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.85.3.172.
53. Polka L., Strange W. Perceptual equivalence of acoustic cues that differentiate /r/ and/l/. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1985, 78:1187-1197. doi: 10.1121/1.392887.
54. Saffran J.R., Aslin R.N., Newport E.L. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 1996, 274:1926-1928. doi: 10.1126/science.274.5294.1926.
55. Turk-Browne N.B., Isola P.J., Scholl B.J., Treat T.A. Multidimensional visual statistical learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2008, 34:399-407. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.399.
56. Whalen D.H., Abramson A.S., Lisker L., Mody M. F0 gives voicing information even with unambiguous voice onset times. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1993, 93:2152-2159. doi: 10.1121/1.406678.