Speaker-specific processing and local context information: The case of speaking rate

Applied Psycholinguistics

Volumn 37, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 1397-1415

  Reinisch, Eva ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84951988441     PISSN: 01427164     EISSN: 14691817     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0142716415000612     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Abramson, A. S., & Lisker, L. (1985). Relative power of cues: F0 shift versus voice timing. In V. Fromkin (Ed.), Phonetic linguistics: Essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged (pp. 25-33). New York: Academic Press.
2. Allen, S. J., & Miler, J. L. (2004). Listener sensitivity to individual talker differences in voice-onsettime. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115, 3171-3183.
3. Allen, J. S., Miller, J. L., & deSteno, D. (2003). Individual talker differences in voice-onset-time. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 544-552.
4. Baese-Berk, M., Bradlow, A. R., & Wright, B. A. (2013). Accent-independent adaptation to foreignaccented speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133, EL174-EL180.
5. Baese-Berk, M. M., Heffner, C. C., Dilley, C. L., Pitt, M. A., Morrill, T. H., & McAuley, J. D. (2014). Long-term temporal tracking of speech rate affects spoken-word recognition. Psychological Science, 25, 1546-1553.
6. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. (2013). Random-effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255-278.
7. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2009). PRAAT, doing phonetics by computer (version 5.1) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org
8. Bradlow, A. R., & Bent, T. (2008). Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech. Cognition, 106, 707-729.
9. Brouwer, S., Mitterer, H., & Huettig, F. (2012). Speech reductions change the dynamics of competition during spoken word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 539-571.
10. Clark, A. (2013).Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 181-253.
11. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
12. Creel, S. C.,&Tumlin,M.A. (2011).On-line acoustic and semantic interpretation of talker information. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 264-285.
13. Crystal, T. H., & House, A. S. (1982). Segmental durations in connected speech signals: Preliminary results. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 72, 705-716.
14. Crystal, T. H., & House, A. S. (1988). Segmental durations in connected-speech signals: Current results. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 83, 1553-1573.
15. Dilley, L. C.,&Pitt, M. A. (2010). Altering context speech rate can cause words to appear or disappear. Psychological Science, 21, 1664-1670.
16. Farmer, T. A., Brown, M., & Tanenhaus, M. C. (2013). Prediction, explanation, and the role of generative models in language processing: Commentary to Clark, A. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 211-212.
17. Gay, T. (1978). Effect of speaking rate on vowel formant movements. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 63, 223-230.
18. Goldinger, S. D. (1996). Words and voices: Episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1166-1183.
19. Goldinger, S. D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105, 251-279.
20. Green, K. P., Tomiak, G. R., & Kuhl, P. K. (1997). The encoding of rate and talker information during phonetic perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 675-692.
21. Jessen, M. (1993). Stress conditions on vowel quality and quantity in German. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory, 8, 1-27.
22. Johnson, K. (1997). Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In K. Johnson& J. W. Mullennix (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 145-165). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
23. Johnson, K. (2006). Resonance in an exemplar-based lexicon: The emergence of social identity and phonology. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 485-499.
24. Jungers, M. K., & Hupp, J. M. (2009). Speech priming: Evidence for rate persistence in unscripted speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 611-624.
25. Kidd, G. R. (1989).Articulatory-rate context effects in phoneme identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 736-748.
26. Kleinschmidt, D. F., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Robust speech perception: Recognize the familiar, generalize to the similar, and adapt to the novel. Psychological Review, 122, 148-203.
27. Koreman, J. (2006). Perceived speech rate: The effects of articulation rate and speaking style in spontaneous speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 582-596.
28. Kraljic, T., & Samuel, A. G. (2007). Perceptual adjustments to multiple speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 1-15.
29. Lisker, L., & Abramson, A. S. (1964). A cross language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustic measurements. Word, 20, 384-420.
30. Lisker, L., & Abramson, A. S. (1967). Some effects of context on voice onset time in English stops. Language and Speech, 10, 1-28.
31. McQueen, J. M., & Huettig, F. (2012). Changing only the probability that spoken words will be distorted changes how they are recognized. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131, 509-517.
32. Miller, J. L. (1987). Rate-dependent processing in speech perception. In A. W. Ellis (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language (Vol. 3, pp. 119-157). London: Erlbaum.
33. Miller, J. L., & Dexter, E. R. (1988). Effects of speaking rate and lexical status on phonetic perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 369-378.
34. Miller, J. L., Grosjean, F., & Lomanto, C. (1984). Articulation rate and its variability in spontaneous speech: A reanalysis and some implications. Phonetica, 41, 215-225.
35. Miller, J. L., & Liberman, A. M. (1979). Some effects of later-occurring information on the perception of stop consonant and semivowel. Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 457-465.
36. Newman, R. S., & Sawusch, J. R. (1996). Perceptual normalization for speaking rate: Effects of temporal distance. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 540-560.
37. Newman, R. S., & Sawusch, J. R. (2009). Perceptual normalization for speaking rate: III. Effects of the rate of one voice on perception of another. Journal of Phonetics, 37, 46-65.
38. Norris, D., McQueen, J.M., & Cutler, A. (2003). Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 204-238.
39. Nygaard, L. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Talker-specific learning in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 355-376.
40. Nygaard, L. C., Sommers, M. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1994). Speech perception as a talker-contingent process. Psychological Science, 5, 42-46.
41. Pätzold, M., & Simpson, A. P. (1997). Acoustic analysis of German vowels in read speech. In A. P. Simpson, K. J. Kohler, & T. Rettstadt (Eds.). The Kiel Corpus of Read/Spontaneous Speech - Acoustic database, processing tools and analysis results (AIPUK Vol. 32, pp. 215-247). Kiel, Germany: IPDS.
42. Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. in J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency effects and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 137-157). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
43. Poellmann, K., Mitterer, H., & McQueen, J. M. (2014). Use what you can: Storage, abstraction processes, and perceptual adjustments help listeners recognize reduced form. Frontiers in Psychology: Language Sciences, 5, 437.
44. Quené, H. (2008).Multilevelmodeling of between-speaker andwithin-speaker variation in spontaneous speech tempo. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123, 1104-1113.
45. Quené, H. (2013). Longitudinal trends in speech tempo: The case of queen Beatrix. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133, EL452-EL457.
46. Reinisch, E., Jesse, A., & McQueen, J. M. (2011a). Speaking rate from proximal and distal contexts is used during word segmentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 978-996.
47. Reinisch, E., Jesse, A., & McQueen, J. M. (2011b). Speaking rate affects the perception of duration as a suprasegmental lexical-stress cue. Language and Speech, 54, 147-166.
48. Reinisch, E., & Sjerps, M. J. (2013). Compensation for speaking rate and spectral context take place at a similar point in time. Journal of Phonetics, 41, 101-116.
49. Sawusch, J. R., & Newman, R. S. (2000). Perceptual normalization for speaking rate: II. Effects of signal discontinuities. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 285-300.
50. Sjerps,M. J.,&Reinisch, E. Reinisch (2015).Divide and conquer: Howperceptual contrast sensitivity and perceptual learning cooperate in reducing input variation in speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 710-722.
51. Summerfield, Q. (1981). Articulatory rate and perceptual constancy in phonetic perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1074-1095.
52. Theodore, R. M.,Miller, J. L., & deSteno, D. (2009). Individual talker differences in voice-onset-time: Contextual influences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 3974-3982.
53. Tsao, Y.-C., & Weismer, G. (1997). Interspeaker variation in habitual speaking rate: Evidence for a neuromuscular component. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 858-866.
54. Wayland, S. C., Miller, J. L., & Volaitis, L. E. (1994). The influence of sentential speaking rate on the internal structure of phonetic categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 2694-2701.
55. Wilson, M., & Wilson, T. P. (2005). An oscillator model of the timing on turn-taking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 957-968.