Perceptuomotor bias in the imitation of steady-state vowels.

Previous studies suggest that speakers are systematically inaccurate, or biased, when imitating self-produced vowels. The direction of these biases in formant space and their variation may offer clues about the organization of the vowel perceptual space. To examine these patterns, three male speakers were asked to imitate 45 self-produced vowels that were systematically distributed in F1/F2 space. All three speakers showed imitation bias, and the bias magnitudes were significantly larger than those predicted by a model of articulatory noise. Each speaker showed a different pattern of bias directions, but the pattern was unrelated to the locations of prototypical vowels produced by that speaker. However, there were substantial quantitative regularities: (1) The distribution of imitation variability and bias magnitudes were similar for all speakers, (2) the imitation variability was independent of the bias magnitudes, and (3) the imitation variability (a production measure) was commensurate with the formant discrimination limen (a perceptual measure). These results indicate that there is additive Gaussian noise in the imitation process that independently affects each formant and that there are speaker-dependent and potentially nonlinguistic biases in vowel perception and production.

[1]  R J Porter,et al.  Rapid reproduction of vowel-vowel sequences: evidence for a fast and direct acoustic-motoric linkage in speech. , 1980, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[2]  J. Hillenbrand,et al.  Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Bart de Boer,et al.  Self-organization in vowel systems , 2000, J. Phonetics.

[4]  B S Atal,et al.  Perceptual differences between vowels located in a limited phonetic space. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  D. Pisoni Auditory and phonetic memory codes in the discrimination of consonants and vowels , 1973, Perception & psychophysics.

[6]  J. Perkell,et al.  Variability in production of the vowels /i/ and /a/. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  K VallabhaGautam,et al.  Systematic errors in the formant analysis of steady-state vowels , 2002 .

[8]  B H Repp,et al.  Categories and context in the perception of isolated steady-state vowels. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  C. Darwin,et al.  Extracting spectral envelopes: formant frequency matching between sounds on different and modulated fundamental frequencies. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  D Kewley-Port,et al.  Vowel formant discrimination: towards more ordinary listening conditions. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Kenneth N. Stevens,et al.  On the quantal nature of speech , 1972 .

[12]  Wolfgang Wildgen,et al.  Basic Principles of Self-Organization in Language , 1990 .

[13]  A J van Hessen,et al.  Response distributions in intensity resolution and speech discrimination. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  P. Kuhl A new view of language acquisition. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  J. Sawusch,et al.  Contextual effects in vowel perception I: Anchor-induced contrast effects , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[16]  Bishnu S. Atal,et al.  Perceptual differences between vowels located in a limited phonetic space , 1983 .

[17]  T. Jung,et al.  Variability in the production of quantal vowels revisited , 1995 .

[18]  T Landis,et al.  Role of bone conduction in the self-perception of speech. , 1990, Folia phoniatrica.

[19]  J A Kelso,et al.  "Compensatory articulation" under conditions of reduced afferent information: a dynamic formulation. , 1983, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[20]  S Shigeno Assimilation and contrast in the phonetic perception of vowels. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  David R. Williams,et al.  Categorical tendencies in imitating self-produced isolated vowels , 1987, Speech Commun..

[22]  H. S. Gopal,et al.  A perceptual model of vowel recognition based on the auditory representation of American English vowels. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  P Iverson,et al.  Mapping the perceptual magnet effect for speech using signal detection theory and multidimensional scaling. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  Raymond D. Kent,et al.  Developmental study of vowel formant frequencies in an imitation task. , 1979, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  Explaining the Dispersion of the Single-Vowel Occurrences in an F1/F2 Space , 1995, Phonetica.

[26]  Raymond D. Kent,et al.  The Imitation of Synthetic Vowels and Some Implications for Speech Memory , 1973, Phonetica.

[27]  Louis Goldstein,et al.  Gestural specification using dynamically-defined articulatory structures , 1990 .

[28]  P. Richter,et al.  Attractors and perceptual field dynamics of homogeneous stimulus areas , 1991, Psychological research.

[29]  A. Meltzoff,et al.  Infant vocalizations in response to speech: vocal imitation and developmental change. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  R A Fox,et al.  Individual Variation in the Perception of Vowels: Implications for a Perception-Production Link , 1982, Phonetica.

[31]  T. Gay,et al.  Acoustic and perceptual effects of changes in vocal tract constrictions for vowels. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  C. Fowler,et al.  Rapid access to speech gestures in perception: Evidence from choice and simple response time tasks. , 2003, Journal of memory and language.

[33]  L D Braida,et al.  Effects of token variability on our ability to distinguish between vowels , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[34]  Gautam K. Vallabha,et al.  Systematic errors in the formant analysis of steady-state vowels , 2002, Speech Commun..

[35]  N. Fisher,et al.  Statistical Analysis of Circular Data , 1993 .

[36]  Michelle R. Molis,et al.  Generalizing a neuropsychological model of visual categorization to auditory categorization of vowels , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[37]  H. Traunmüller Analytical expressions for the tonotopic sensory scale , 1990 .

[38]  J. Laver,et al.  Variability in Vowel Perception , 1965 .

[39]  Randy L. Diehl,et al.  Remarks on Stevens’ quantal theory of speech , 1989 .

[40]  J. Hawks Difference limens for formant patterns of vowel sounds. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  J Hillenbrand,et al.  Vowel classification based on fundamental frequency and formant frequencies. , 1987, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[42]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Resolution for speech sounds: basic sensitivity and context memory on vowel and consonant continua , 1988 .

[43]  P Ladefoged,et al.  Individual differences in vowel production. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[44]  K. Mardia,et al.  A general correlation coefficient for directional data and related regression problems , 1980 .

[45]  B. Repp,et al.  Stimulus order effects in vowel discrimination. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  David R. Williams,et al.  Categorical trends in vowel imitation: Preliminary observations from a replication experiment , 1985, Speech Commun..

[47]  N. Cowan,et al.  The use of auditory and phonetic memory in vowel discrimination. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[48]  D B Pisoni,et al.  Variability of Vowel Formant Frequencies and the Quantal Theory of Speech: A First Report , 1980, Phonetica.