Zebra finches and Dutch adults exhibit the same cue weighting bias in vowel perception

Animal Cognition

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 155-161

  Ohms, Verena R ^a,d   Escudero, Paola ^b   Lammers, Karin ^a   ten Cate, Carel ^a,c  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Acoustic cue weighting; Formants; Speech evolution; Vowel perception; Zebra finches

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; FINCH; HEARING; HUMAN; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHONETICS; PHYSIOLOGY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; ANIMALS; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; CUES; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FINCHES; HUMANS; PHONETICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

PASSERI; TAENIOPYGIA GUTTATA; VERTEBRATA;

EID: 84857362998     PISSN: 14359448     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10071-011-0441-2     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Anderson SR (2008) The logical structure of linguistic theory. Language 84: 795-814.
2. Boersma P (2001) PRAAT, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot Int 5: 341-345.
3. Curtin S, Fennell C, Escudero P (2009) Weighting of vowel cues explains patterns of word-object associative learning. Dev Sci 12: 725-731.
4. Dooling RJ (2004) Audition: can birds hear everything they sing? In: Marler P, Slabbekoorn H (eds) Nature's music. The science of birdsong. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, pp 206-225.
5. Dooling RJ, Brown SD (1990) Speech perception by budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): spoken vowels. Percept Psychophys 47: 568-574.
6. Dooling RJ, Okanoya K, Brown SD (1989) Speech perception by budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): the voiced-voiceless distinction. Percept Psychophys 46: 65-71.
7. Dooling RJ, Best CT, Brown SD (1995) Discrimination of synthetic full-formant and sinewave /ra-la/ continua by budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) and zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). J Acoust Soc Am 97: 1839-1846.
8. Eriksson JL, Villa AEP (2006) Learning of auditory equivalence classes for vowels by rats. Behav Process 73: 348-359.
9. Escudero P, Benders T, Lipski SC (2009) Native, non-native and L2 perceptual cue weighting for Dutch vowels: the case of Dutch, German and Spanish listeners. J Phonetics 37: 452-465.
10. Fitch WT (2010) The evolution of language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
11. Fowler CA, Saltzman E (1993) Coordination and coarticulation in speech production. Lang Speech 36: 171-195.
12. Hauser MD, Chomsky N, Fitch WT (2002) The faculty of language: what is it, who has it and how did it evolve? Science 298: 1569-1579.
13. Hienz RD, Aleszczyk CM, May BJ (1996) Vowel discrimination in cats: acquisition, effects of stimulus level and performance in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 99: 3656-3668.
14. Kluender KR, Diehl RL, Killeen PR (1987) Japanese quail can learn phonetic categories. Science 237: 1195-1197.
15. Kuhl PK, Miller JD (1975) Speech perception by the chinchilla: voiced-voiceless distinction in alveolar plosives. Science 190: 69-72.
16. Kuhl PK, Miller JD (1978) Speech perception by the chinchilla: identification functions for synthetic VOT stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 63: 905-917.
17. Lacerda F (1993) Sonority contrasts dominate young infants' vowel perception. J Acoust Soc Am 93: 2372.
18. Lacerda F (1994) The asymmetric structure of the infant's perceptual vowel space. J Acoust Soc Am 95: 3016.
19. Lachlan RF, Peters S, Verhagen SL, ten Cate C (2010) Are there species-universal categories in bird song phonology and syntax? a comparative study of chaffinches (Fringilla coelebs), zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata), and swamp sparrows (Melospiza georgiana)? J Comp Psychol 124: 92-108.
20. Ladefoged P (2006) A course in phonetics. Thomson Wadsworth, Boston.
21. Liberman AM (1982) On finding that speech is special. Am Psychol 37: 148-167.
22. Lieberman P (1975) On the origins of language. An introduction to the evolution of human speech. Macmillan, New York.
23. Lohr B, Dooling RJ (1998) Detection of changes in timbre and harmonicity in complex sounds by zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata) and budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). J Comp Psychol 112: 36-47.
24. Mayo C, Turk A (2004) Adult-child differences in acoustic cue weighting are influenced by segmental context: children are not always perceptually biased toward transitions. J Acoust Soc Am 115: 3184-3194.
25. Mayo C, Scobbie JM, Hewlett N, Waters D (2003) The influence of phonemic awareness development on acoustic cue weighting strategies in children's speech perception. J Speech Hear Res 46: 1184-1196.
26. Nittrouer S (1996) The relation between speech perception and phonemic awareness: evidence from low-SES children and children with chronic OM. J Speech Hear Res 39: 1059-1070.
27. Nittrouer S, Lowenstein JH (2009) Does harmonicity explain children's cue weighting of fricative-vowel syllables? J Acoust Soc Am 125: 1679-1692.
28. Ohms VR, Gill A, van Heijningen CAA, Beckers GJL, ten Cate C (2010a) Zebra finches exhibit speaker-independent phonetic perception of human speech. Proc R Soc B 277: 1003-1009.
29. Ohms VR, Snelderwaard PC, ten Cate C, Beckers GJL (2010b) Vocal tract articulation in zebra finches. PLoS One 5: e11923.
30. Pinker S, Jackendoff R (2005) The faculty of language: what's special about it? Cognition 95: 201-236.
31. Sokal RR, Rolf FJ (1995) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. WH Freeman and Company, New York.
32. Titze IR (2000) Principles of voice production. National Centre for Voice and Speech, Iowa City.
33. Ylinen S, Uther M, Latvala A, Vepsäläinen S, Iverson P, Akahane-Yamada R, Näätänen R (2009) Training the brain to weight speech cues differently: a study of Finnish second-language users of english. J Cogn Neurosci 22: 1319-1332.