Syllable structure and integration of voicing and manner of articulation information in labial consonant identification.

Speech perception requires the integration of information from multiple phonetic and phonological dimensions. A sizable literature exists on the relationships between multiple phonetic dimensions and single phonological dimensions (e.g., spectral and temporal cues to stop consonant voicing). A much smaller body of work addresses relationships between phonological dimensions, and much of this has focused on sequences of phones. However, strong assumptions about the relevant set of acoustic cues and/or the (in)dependence between dimensions limit previous findings in important ways. Recent methodological developments in the general recognition theory framework enable tests of a number of these assumptions and provide a more complete model of distinct perceptual and decisional processes in speech sound identification. A hierarchical Bayesian Gaussian general recognition theory model was fit to data from two experiments investigating identification of English labial stop and fricative consonants in onset (syllable initial) and coda (syllable final) position. The results underscore the importance of distinguishing between conceptually distinct processing levels and indicate that, for individual subjects and at the group level, integration of phonological information is partially independent with respect to perception and that patterns of independence and interaction vary with syllable position.

[1]  L. Olzak Widely separated spatial frequencies: Mechanism interactions , 1986, Vision Research.

[2]  Ulrike Hahn,et al.  Phoneme similarity and confusability , 2005 .

[3]  David B Pisoni,et al.  On the identification of place and voicing features in synthetic stop consonants. , 1974, Journal of phonetics.

[4]  C. Best,et al.  Discrimination of non-native consonant contrasts varying in perceptual assimilation to the listener's native phonological system. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  R D Thomas,et al.  Perceptual interactions of facial dimensions in speeded classification and identification , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[6]  J. L. Miller,et al.  Effect of speaking rate on the perceptual structure of a phonetic category , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[7]  J Kingston,et al.  Integrality in the perception of tongue root position and voice quality in vowels. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  S. Blumstein,et al.  Perceptual integration of the murmur and formant transitions for place of articulation in nasal consonants. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  T. M. Nearey,et al.  Speech perception as pattern recognition. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  S. Blumstein,et al.  Acoustic invariance in speech production: evidence from measurements of the spectral characteristics of stop consonants. , 1979, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Joanne L. Miller Interactions in processing segmental and suprasegmental features of speech , 1978 .

[12]  Noah Silbert,et al.  Focus, prosodic context, and phonological feature specification: patterns of variation in fricative production. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  J. L. Miller,et al.  Studies on the perception of place and manner of articulation: a comparison of the labial-alveolar and nasal-stop distinctions. , 1977, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  Terrance M. Nearey,et al.  The segment as a unit of speech perception , 1990 .

[15]  Noah H. Silbert,et al.  Integration of phonological information in obstruent consonant identification , 2009 .

[16]  S. Blumstein,et al.  Effects of speaking rate on voice-onset time in Thai, French, and English , 1997 .

[17]  J. L. Miller,et al.  Phonetic prototypes: influence of place of articulation and speaking rate on the internal structure of voicing categories. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  T. M. Nearey Phoneme-like units and speech perception , 2001 .

[19]  Eric Oglesbee Multidimensional stop categorization in English, Spanish, Korean, Japanese, and Canadian French , 2008 .

[20]  R. Port,et al.  Consonant/vowel ratio as a cue for voicing in English , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[21]  N. Perrin,et al.  Varieties of perceptual independence. , 1986, Psychological review.

[22]  V C Tartter,et al.  Asymmetric dependencies in processing phonetic features , 1978, Perception & psychophysics.

[23]  R. Smits Hierarchical categorization of coarticulated phonemes: A theoretical analysis , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[24]  John Kingston,et al.  Integrality of nasalization and F1 in vowels in isolation and before oral and nasal consonants: A detection‐theoretic application of the Garner paradigm , 1995 .

[25]  John Kingston,et al.  On the internal perceptual structure of distinctive features: The [voice] contrast , 2008, J. Phonetics.

[26]  R Smits,et al.  Evidence for hierarchical categorization of coarticulated phonemes. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  José Benkí,et al.  Place of articulation and first formant transition pattern both affect perception of voicing in English , 2001, J. Phonetics.

[28]  A. Jongman,et al.  Acoustic characteristics of English fricatives. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  F. Gregory Ashby,et al.  Toward a Unified Theory of Similarity and Recognition , 1988 .

[30]  J Kingston,et al.  Integrality of nasalization and F1. II. Basic sensitivity and phonetic labeling measure distinct sensory and decision-rule interactions. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  P. Milenkovic,et al.  Statistical analysis of word-initial voiceless obstruents: preliminary data. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  D. Massaro,et al.  Evaluation and integration of acoustic features in speech perception. , 1980, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  T. Wickens Maximum-likelihood estimation of a multivariate Gaussian rating model with excluded data , 1992 .

[34]  T. M. Nearey,et al.  Context Effects in a Double-Weak Theory of Speech Perception , 1992, Language and speech.

[35]  S. Blumstein,et al.  Invariant cues for place of articulation in stop consonants. , 1978, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[37]  J. Townsend,et al.  Independence and separability in the perception of complex nonspeech sounds , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[38]  L A Olzak,et al.  Discrimination of Complex Patterns: Orientation Information is Integrated across Spatial Scale; Spatial-Frequency and Contrast Information are Not , 1997, Perception.

[39]  D. Massaro,et al.  Integration of featural information in speech perception. , 1978, Psychological review.

[40]  L. Lisker,et al.  A Cross-Language Study of Voicing in Initial Stops: Acoustical Measurements , 1964 .