A multi-tier framework for understanding spoken language

Listening to Speech: An Auditory Perspective

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 411-433

  Greenberg, Steven ^a  

^a The Speech Institute   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925749499     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203933107     Document Type: Chapter

References (67)

1. Allen, J. B. (1994). How do humans process and recognize speech? IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing, 2, 567–577.
2. Archangeli, D., & Pulleyblank, D. (1994). Grounded phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Bansai, R. K. (1969). The intelligibility of Indian English: Measurements of the intelligibility of connected speech and sentence and word material, presented to listeners of different nationalities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of London.
4. Black, A. W., & Campbell, N. (1995). Optimising selection of units from speech databases for concatenative synthesis. In Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (Eurospeech-95)(pp. 581–584). Madrid, Spain.
5. Blumstein, S. E., & Stevens, K. N. (1979). Acoustic invariance in speech production: Evidence from measurements of the spectral characteristics of stop consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 66, 1001–1017.
6. Boersma, P. (1998). Functional phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. The Hague, Netherlands: Holland Academic Graphics.
7. Braida, L. D. (1991). Crossmodal integration in the identification of consonant segments. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 647–677.
8. Brown, R., & McNeill, D. (1966). The –tip-of-the-tongue— phenomenon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 325–337.
9. Campbell, N. (1994). Prosody and the selection of units for concatenation synthesis. In Proceedings of the Second ESCA/IEEE Workshop on Speech Synthesis(pp. 61–64). New Paltz, NY.
10. Chang, S. (2002). A syllable, articulatory-feature, and stress-accent model of speech. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
11. Chang, S., Wester, M., & Greenberg, S. (2005). An elitist approach to automatic articulatory-acoustic feature classification for phonetic characterization of spoken language. Speech Communication, in press.
12. Diehl, R., & Lindblom, B. (2004). Explaining the structure of feature and phoneme inventories: The role of auditory distinctiveness. In S. Greenberg, W. A. Ainsworth, A. N. Popper, & R. R. Fay (Eds.), Speech processing in the auditory system(pp. 101–162). New York: Springer-Verlag.
13. Drullman, R., Festen, J. M., & Plomp, R. (1994a). Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1053–1064.
14. Drullman, R., Festen, J. M., & Plomp, R. (1994b). Effect of reducing slow temporal modulations on speech reception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 2670–2680.
15. Edwards, B. (2004). Hearing aids and hearing impairment. In S. Greenberg, W. A. Ainsworth, A. N. Popper, & R. R. Fay (Eds.), Speech processing in the auditory system(pp. 339–421). New York: Springer-Verlag.
16. Fletcher, H. (1953). Speech and hearing in communication. New York: Van Nostrand.
17. Fletcher, H., & Gault, R. H. (1950). The perception of speech and its relation to telephony. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22, 89–150.
18. French, N. R., & Steinberg, J. C. (1947). Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 19, 90–119.
19. Fromkin, V. (Ed.). (1973). Speech errors as linguistic evidence. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
20. Fujimura, O. (1979). An analysis of English syllables as cores and affixes. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforchung, 32, 471–476.
21. Fujimura, O., & Lovins, J. (1978). Syllables as concatenative phonetic units. In A. Bell & J. B. Hooper (Eds.), Syllables and segments(pp. 107–120), Amsterdam: North-Holland.
22. Grant, K. W. (2002). Measures of auditory-visual integration for speech understanding: A theoretical perspective. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112, 30–33.
23. Grant, K. W., Waiden, B. E., & Seitz, P. F. (1998). Auditory-visual speech recognition by hearing-impaired subjects: Consonant recognition, sentence recognition, and auditory-visual integration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103, 2677–2690.
24. Greenberg, J. (1978). Some generalizations concerning initial and final consonant clusters. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language: Vol. 2. Phonology(pp. 243–280). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
25. Greenberg, S. (1996). Auditory processing of speech. In N. Lass (Ed.), Principles of experimental phonetics(pp. 362–407). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
26. Greenberg, S. (1997). The Switchboard transcription project (Research Rpt. No. 24, 1996 Large Vocabulary Continuous Speech Recognition Summer Research Workshop Technical Report Series). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Language and Speech Processing.
27. Greenberg, S. (1999). Speaking in shorthand: A syllable-centric perspective for understanding pronunciation variation. Speech Communication, 29, 159–176.
28. Greenberg, S. (2003). Pronunciation variation is key to understanding spoken language. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences(pp. 219–222). Barcelona, Spain.
29. Greenberg, S. (2005). From here to utility—Melding phonetic insight with speech technology. In W. Barry & W. Domelen (Eds.), Integrating phonetic knowledge with speech technology(pp. 107–131). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
30. Greenberg, S., & Ainsworth, W. A. (2004). Speech processing in the auditory system: An overview. In S. Greenberg, W. A. Ainsworth, A. N. Popper, & R. R. Fay (Eds.), Speech processing in the auditory system(pp. 1–62). New York: Springer-Verlag.
31. Greenberg, S., & Arai, T. (2004). What are the essential cues for understanding spoken language? IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 87, 1059–1070.
32. Greenberg, S., Carvey, H. ML, & Hitchcock, L. (2002). The relation of stress accent to pronunciation variation in spontaneous American English discourse. In Proceedings of the ISCA Workshop on Prosody and Speech Processing(pp. 53–56). Red Bank, NJ.
33. Greenberg, S., Carvey, H. M., Hitchcock, L., & Chang, S. (2002). Beyond the phoneme—A juncture-accent model for spoken language. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Human Language Technology Research(pp. 36–43). San Diego, CA.
34. Greenberg, S., Carvey, H. M., Hitchcock, L., & Chang, S. (2003). Temporal properties of spontaneous speech—A syllable-centric perspective. Journal of Phonetics, 31, 465–485.
35. Hitchcock, L., & Greenberg, S. (2001). Vowel height is intimately associated with stress accent in spontaneous American English discourse. In Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (Eurospeech-2001)(pp. 79–82). Aalborg, Denmark.
36. Houtgast, T., & Steeneken, H. (1985). A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77, 1069–1077.
37. Huang, X. D., Acero, A., & Hon, H.-W. (2001). Spoken language processing: A guide to theory, algorithm and system development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
38. Huggins, A. W. F. (1972). On the perception of temporal phenomena in speech. Journal of the Acoustical Soci-ety of America, 51, 1279–1290.
39. Jaeger, M. (2003). Perception of lost contrast. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences(pp. 1735–1738). Barcelona, Spain.
40. Jakobson, R., Fant, G., & Halle, M. (1963). Preliminaries to speech analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Jespersen, O. (1897–1899). Fonetik. En systematiskfremstilling aflaeren om sproglyd [Phonetics. A systematic description of the sounds of language]. Copenhagen, Denmark: DetSchubotheske Forlag.
42. Jespersen, O. (1904). Phonetische Grundfragen [Basic issues in phonetics]. Leipzig, Germany: Teubner.
43. Keller, E., Bailly, G., Monaghan, A., Terken, J., & Huckvale, M. (2001). Improvements in speech synthesis. New York: Wiley.
44. Kewley-Port, D. (1983). Time-varying features as correlates of place of articulation in stop consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 73, 322–335.
45. Koutny, I., Olaszy, G., & Olaszi, P. (2000). Prosody prediction from text in Hungarian and its realization in TTS conversion. International Journal of Speech Technology, 3, 187–200.
46. Ladefoged, P. (2000). A course in phonetics(4th ed.). Boston: Heinle.
47. Lieberman, P. (1984). The biology and evolution of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48. Lieberman, P. (1990). Uniquely human: The evolution of speech, thought and selfless behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49. Massaro, D. W. (1987). Speech perception by ear and eye: A paradigm for psychological inquiry. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
50. Massaro, D. W, & Cohen, M. M. (1999). Speech perception in hearing-impaired perceivers: Synergy of multiple modalities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 21–41.
51. McGurk, H., & MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices: A new illusion. Nature, 264, 746–748.
52. Miller, G. A., & Nicely, P. (1955). An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27, 338–352.
53. Morgan, N., Bourlard, H., & Hermansky, H. (2004). Automatic speech recognition: An auditory perspective. In S. Greenberg, W. A. Ainsworth, A. N. Popper, & R. R. Fay (Eds.), Speech processing in the auditory system(pp. 309–338). New York: Springer-Verlag.
54. Narayanan, S., & Alwan, A. (2004). Text to speech synthesis: New paradigms and advances. Harlow, UK: Pearson Educational.
55. Nicholls, J. G., Wallace, B. G., Fuchs, P. A., & Martin, A. R. (2001). From neuron to brain(4th ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
56. Ohala, J. J. (1992). Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. In Papers from the parasession on the syllable(pp. 319–338). Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
57. Ohala, J. J., & Kawasaki-Fukumori, H. (1997). Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining the shape of morphemes. In S. Eliasson & E. H. Jahr (Eds.), Studies for Einar Haugen(pp. 343–365). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
58. Paulesu, E., Démonet, J.-F., Fazio, F, McCrory, E., Chanoine, V., Brunswick, N., et al. (2001). Dyslexia: Cultural diversity and biological unity. Science, 291, 2165–2167.
59. Port, R. F., & Crawford, P. (1989). Incomplete neutralization and pragmatics in German. Journal of Phonetics, 17, 257–282.
60. Port, R. F, & O'Dell, M. L. (1985). Neutralization of syllable-final voicing in German. Journal of Phonetics, 13, 455–471.
61. Raisbeck, G. (1963), The mathematical theory of information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
62. Sampson, G. (1985). Writing systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
63. Sapir, E. (1921). Language. New York: Harcourt.
64. Segui, J., Dupoux, E., & Mehler, J. (1990). The role of the syllable in speech segmentation, phoneme identification, and lexical access. In G. T. M. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives(pp. 263–280). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
65. Stevens, K. N. (1998). Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
66. Waibel, A., & Lee, K.-F (1990). Readings in speech recognition. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann
67. Zee, D. (1995). Sonority constraints on syllable structure. Phonology, 12, 85–129.