Evidence for efficiency in vowel production

Speaking is generally considered efficient in that less effort is spent articulating more redundant items. With efficient speech production, less reduction is expected in the pronunciation of phonemes that are more important (distinctive) for word identification. The importance of a single phoneme in word recognition can be quantified as the information (in bits) it adds to the preceding word onset to narrow down the lexical search. In our study, segmental information showed to correlate consistently with two measures of reduction: vowel duration and formant reduction. This correlation was found after accounting for speaker and vowel identity, speaking style, lexical stress, modeled prominence, and position of the syllable in the word. However, consistent correlations are only found in high−frequency words. Furthermore, the correlation is strongest in normal reading and weaker in spontaneous and anomalous read speech. Combined, these facts suggest that this type of efficiency in production might rely on retrieving stored words from memory. Efficiency in vowel production seems to be less or absent when words have to be assembled on−line.

[1]  Anne Cutler,et al.  The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary , 1987 .

[2]  Barbertje M. Streefkerk ACOUSTICAL AND LEXICAL/SYNTACTIC FEATURES TO PREDICT PROMINENCE 1 , 2001 .

[3]  Diana Binnenpoorte,et al.  The IFA corpus: a phonemically segmented dutch "open source" speech database , 2001, INTERSPEECH.

[4]  V.W. Zue,et al.  The use of speech knowledge in automatic speech recognition , 1985, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[5]  Matthew P. Aylett,et al.  Stochastic suprasegmentals: relationships between redundancy, prosodic structure and care of articulation in spontaneous speech , 2000, INTERSPEECH.

[6]  D Norris,et al.  Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary , 2000, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[7]  P. D. Eimas,et al.  Speech, language, and communication , 1997 .

[8]  B. M. Streefkerk Prominence. Acoustic and lexical/syntactic correlates , 2002 .

[9]  L P Shapiro,et al.  "How to milk a coat:" the effects of semantic and acoustic information on phoneme categorization. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Anne Cutler,et al.  The comparative perspective on spoken-language processing , 1997, Speech Commun..

[11]  Dick R. van Bergem,et al.  Acoustic vowel reduction as a function of sentence accent, word stress, and word class , 1993, Speech Commun..

[12]  Francis J. Smith,et al.  A Comparison of Human and Statistical Language Model Performance using Missing-Word Tests , 1997 .

[13]  P. Lieberman Some Effects of Semantic and Grammatical Context on the Production and Perception of Speech , 1963 .

[14]  Louis C. W. Pols,et al.  Effects of stress and lexical structure on speech efficiency , 1999, EUROSPEECH.

[15]  D. Kemmerer,et al.  Phonotactics and Syllable Stress: Implications for the Processing of Spoken Nonsense Words , 1997, Language and speech.

[16]  Anne Cutler Speaking for listening , 1987 .

[17]  Sandra P. Whiteside,et al.  Verbo-motor priming in the phonetic encoding of real and non-words , 1999, EUROSPEECH.

[18]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Spoken word recognition and production , 1995 .

[19]  B. Lindblom,et al.  Role of articulation in speech perception: clues from production. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Florien J. van Beinum,et al.  Efficiency as an organizing principle of natural speech , 1998, ICSLP.

[21]  Louis C. W. Pols,et al.  An acoustic description of consonant reduction , 1999, Speech Commun..

[22]  Louis C. W. Pols,et al.  Perisegmental speech improves consonant and vowel identification , 1999, Speech Communication.