Perceptual learning of noise vocoded words: effects of feedback and lexicality.

Speech comprehension is resistant to acoustic distortion in the input, reflecting listeners' ability to adjust perceptual processes to match the speech input. This adjustment is reflected in improved comprehension of distorted speech with experience. For noise vocoding, a manipulation that removes spectral detail from speech, listeners' word report showed a significantly greater improvement over trials for listeners that heard clear speech presentations before rather than after hearing distorted speech (clear-then-distorted compared with distorted-then-clear feedback, in Experiment 1). This perceptual learning generalized to untrained words suggesting a sublexical locus for learning and was equivalent for word and nonword training stimuli (Experiment 2). These findings point to the crucial involvement of phonological short-term memory and top-down processes in the perceptual learning of noise-vocoded speech. Similar processes may facilitate comprehension of speech in an unfamiliar accent or following cochlear implantation.

[1]  G. A. Miller,et al.  The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. , 1951, Journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  R. G. Crowder,et al.  Precategorical acoustic storage (PAS) , 1969 .

[3]  D. Massaro.  Backward recognition masking. , 1975, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  B. Moore.  An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing , 1977 .

[5]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Memory and cognition , 1977 .

[6]  A. Liberman,et al.  Some effects of later-occurring information on the perception of stop consonant and semivowel , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[7]  F Grosjean,et al.  Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[8]  Max Coltheart,et al.  The MRC Psycholinguistic Database , 1981 .

[9]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Speech perception without traditional speech cues. , 1981, Science.

[10]  A. Salasoo,et al.  Interaction of Knowledge Sources in Spoken Word Identification. , 1985, Journal of memory and language.

[11]  E C Schwab,et al.  Some Effects of Training on the Perception of Synthetic Speech , 1985, Human factors.

[12]  S. Greenspan,et al.  Perceptual learning of synthetic speech produced by rule. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  B. Moore.  An introduction to the psychology of hearing (5th ed.). , 1989 .

[14]  D. D. Greenwood.  A cochlear frequency-position function for several species--29 years later. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  J. Mehler,et al.  Understanding Compressed Sentences: The Role of Rhythm and Meaning a , 1993, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[16]  Duncan Young,et al.  Factors affecting adaptation to time-compressed speech , 1993, EUROSPEECH.

[17]  Jennifer S. Pardo,et al.  On the perceptual organization of speech. , 1994, Psychological review.

[18]  A D Baddeley,et al.  The Children's Test of Nonword Repetition: a test of phonological working memory. , 1994, Memory.

[19]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues , 1995, Science.

[20]  A Pollatsek,et al.  On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: a suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[21]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Integrating Form and Meaning: A Distributed Model of Speech Perception. , 1997 .

[22]  J. Mehler,et al.  Perceptual adjustment to time-compressed speech: A cross-linguistic study , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[23]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Definition , 1960, A Philosopher Looks at Sport.

[24]  J. Raaijmakers,et al.  How to deal with "The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy": Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. , 1999 .

[25]  P C Loizou,et al.  On the number of channels needed to understand speech. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  K. Saberi,et al.  Cognitive restoration of reversed speech , 1999, Nature.

[27]  A. Faulkner,et al.  Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: implications for cochlear implants. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  A Faulkner,et al.  Effects of the salience of pitch and periodicity information on the intelligibility of four-channel vocoded speech: implications for cochlear implants. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  J. Mehler,et al.  Adaptation to time-compressed speech: Phonological determinants , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[30]  S. Hochstein,et al.  View from the Top Hierarchies and Reverse Hierarchies in the Visual System , 2002, Neuron.

[31]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer , 2002 .

[32]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  The effects of short-term training for spectrally mismatched noise-band speech. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  H. Nusbaum,et al.  Consolidation during sleep of perceptual learning of spoken language , 2003, Nature.

[34]  D. Norris,et al.  Perceptual learning in speech , 2003, Cognitive Psychology.

[35]  J. Raaijmakers.  A further look at the "language-as-fixed-effect fallacy". , 2003, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[36]  Kenneth I Forster,et al.  DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[37]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat: doing phonetics by computer , 2003 .

[38]  S. Hochstein,et al.  The reverse hierarchy theory of visual perceptual learning , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[39]  Cynthia G. Clopper,et al.  Effects of Talker Variability on Perceptual Learning of Dialects , 2004, Language and speech.

[40]  P. Iverson,et al.  Vowel normalization for accent: an investigation of best exemplar locations in northern and southern British English sentences. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  Constance M. Clarke,et al.  Rapid adaptation to foreign-accented English. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[42]  J. McQueen,et al.  The specificity of perceptual learning in speech processing , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[43]  Roy D Patterson,et al.  Discrimination of speaker size from syllable phrases. , 2005, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[44]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Lexical information drives perceptual learning of distorted speech: evidence from the comprehension of noise-vocoded sentences. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[45]  Arthur Wingfield,et al.  Dissociations in perceptual learning revealed by adult age differences in adaptation to time-compressed speech. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[46]  Richard E. Turner,et al.  The processing and perception of size information in speech sounds. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[47]  A. Samuel,et al.  Perceptual learning for speech: Is there a return to normal? , 2005, Cognitive Psychology.

[48]  P. Boersma.  Praat : doing phonetics by computer (version 4.4.24) , 2006 .

[49]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Neural Response Suppression Predicts Repetition Priming of Spoken Words and Pseudowords , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[50]  A. Samuel,et al.  Generalization in perceptual learning for speech , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[51]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive Hebbian account of lexically guided tuning of speech perception , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[52]  Jeremy Goslin,et al.  Does a regional accent perturb speech processing? , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.