Does perceptual learning in speech reflect changes in phonetic category representation or decision bias?

Recent studies show that perceptual boundaries between phonetic categories are changeable with training (Norris, McQueen, & Cutler, 2003). For example, Kraljic and Samuel (2005) exposed listeners in a lexical decision task to ambiguous /s-∫/ sounds in either s-word contexts (e.g., legacy) or ∫-word contexts (e.g., parachute). In a subsequent /s/-/∫/ categorization test, listeners in the /s/ condition categorized more tokens as /s/ than did those in the /∫/ condition. The effect—termed perceptual learning in speech—is assumed to reflect a change in phonetic category representation. However, the result could be due to a decision bias resulting from the training task. In Experiment 1, we replicated the basic Kraljic and Samuel (2005) experiment and added an AXB discrimination test. In Experiment 2, we used a task that is less likely to induce a decision bias. Results of both experiments and signal detection analyses point to a true change in phonetic representation.

[1]  B. C. Griffith,et al.  The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. , 1957, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

[3]  J. McQueen,et al.  Perceptual learning in speech: Stability over time (L) , 2006 .

[4]  N. McGarr,et al.  The intelligibility of deaf speech to experienced and inexperienced listeners. , 1983, Journal of speech and hearing research.

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

[6]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Phonological Abstraction in the Mental Lexicon , 2006, Cogn. Sci..

[7]  M. Pitt.  The locus of the lexical shift in phoneme identification. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[8]  Matthew Flatt,et al.  PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers , 1993 .

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

[10]  Anne Cutler,et al.  The Dynamic Nature of Speech Perception , 2006, Language and speech.

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

[12]  J. McQueen,et al.  Perceptual learning in speech: stability over time. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  D. Broadbent,et al.  Information Conveyed by Vowels , 1957 .

[14]  D. Massaro.  Testing between the TRACE model and the fuzzy logical model of speech perception , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[15]  P. Luce,et al.  Probabilistic Phonotactics and Neighborhood Activation in Spoken Word Recognition , 1999 .

[16]  A. Samuel,et al.  Perceptual learning for speech , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[17]  A. Samuel,et al.  Lexical configuration and lexical engagement: When adults learn new words , 2007, Cognitive Psychology.

[18]  N. I. Durlach,et al.  Intensity Perception. II. Resolution in One‐Interval Paradigms , 1972 .

[19]  A. Samuel,et al.  Perceptual adjustments to multiple speakers , 2007 .

[20]  Jean Vroomen,et al.  Recalibration of phonetic categories by lipread speech versus lexical information. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[22]  D. Luce,et al.  Detection and Recognition " ' , 2006 .

[23]  N I Durlach,et al.  Intensity perception. I. Preliminary theory of intensity resolution. , 1969, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  R. Newman,et al.  The perceptual consequences of within-talker variability in fricative production. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  E. C. Schwab,et al.  Contextual effects in vowel perception II: Evidence for two processing mechanisms , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[26]  I. Pollack,et al.  On the comparison between identification and discrimination tests in speech perception , 1971 .

[27]  J. Algina,et al.  Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: measures of effect size for some common research designs. , 2003, Psychological methods.

[28]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Talker-specific learning in speech perception , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[29]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[30]  Eugene Galanter,et al.  Handbook of mathematical psychology: I. , 1963 .

[31]  D. Pisoni,et al.  SPEECH PERCEPTION AS A TALKER-CONTINGENT PROCESS. , 1993, Psychological science.

[32]  H. Kucera,et al.  Computational analysis of present-day American English , 1967 .

[33]  P. Ladefoged.  A note on "Information conveyed by vowels". , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  R. Bakeman.  Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs , 2005, Behavior research methods.

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

[36]  P. Bertelson,et al.  Visual Recalibration of Auditory Speech Identification , 2003, Psychological science.