Sentential, lexical, and acoustic effects on the perception of word boundaries.

This study investigates the effects of sentential context, lexical knowledge, and acoustic cues on the segmentation of connected speech. Listeners heard near-homophonous phrases (e.g., plmpaI for "plum pie" versus "plump eye") in isolation, in a sentential context, or in a lexically biasing context. The sentential context and the acoustic cues were piloted to provide strong versus mild support for one segmentation alternative (plum pie) or the other (plump eye). The lexically biasing context favored one segmentation or the other (e.g., skmpaI for "scum pie" versus *"scump eye," and lmpaI, for "lump eye" versus *"lum pie," with the asterisk denoting a lexically unacceptable parse). A forced-choice task, in which listeners indicated which of two words they thought they heard (e.g., "pie" or "eye"), revealed compensatory mechanisms between the sources of information. The effect of both sentential and lexical contexts on segmentation responses was larger when the acoustic cues were mild than when they were strong. Moreover, lexical effects were accompanied with a reduction in sensitivity to the acoustic cues. Sentential context only affected the listeners' response criterion. The results highlight the graded, interactive, and flexible nature of multicue segmentation, as well as functional differences between sentential and lexical contributions to this process.

[1]  S. Goldinger.  Words and voices: episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[2]  Sarah Hawkins,et al.  polysp: a polysystemic, phonetically-rich approach to speech understanding , 2001 .

[3]  A M Liberman,et al.  Perceptual equivalence of two acoustic cues for stop-consonant manner , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  David B. Pisoni,et al.  Trading Relations, Acoustic Cue Integration, and Context Effects in Speech Perception , 1987 .

[5]  Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel,et al.  Variation in the realization of glottalization in normal speakers , 2001, J. Phonetics.

[6]  Anne Pier Salverda,et al.  The role of prosodic boundaries in the resolution of lexical embedding in speech comprehension , 2003, Cognition.

[7]  Sarah Hawkins,et al.  Phonetic influences on the intelligibility of conversational speech , 1994 .

[8]  S. Goldinger.  Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. , 1998, Psychological review.

[9]  C. Coker,et al.  Allophonic variation in American English , 1974 .

[10]  A Cutler,et al.  The perception of rhythm and word boundaries in noise-masked speech. , 1989, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[11]  Michael R. Brent,et al.  An Efficient, Probabilistically Sound Algorithm for Segmentation and Word Discovery , 1999, Machine Learning.

[12]  Z. Pylyshyn.  Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. , 1999, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[13]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The TRACE model of speech perception , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  S. Spitzer,et al.  Lexical boundary error analysis in hypokinetic and ataxic dysarthria. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  J. Mehler,et al.  Phonological phrase boundaries constrain lexical access II. Infant data , 2004 .

[16]  Interactive use of lexical information in speech perception. , 1987 .

[17]  Björn Lindblom,et al.  Explaining Phonetic Variation: A Sketch of the H&H Theory , 1990 .

[18]  J. Swets,et al.  A decision-making theory of visual detection. , 1954, Psychological review.

[19]  S. Spitzer,et al.  Syllabic strength and lexical boundary decisions in the perception of hypokinetic dysarthric speech. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  D. Norris,et al.  The Possible-Word Constraint in the Segmentation of Continuous Speech , 1997, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[22]  L. Nakatani,et al.  Locus of segmental cues for word juncture. , 1977, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  A. Cutler,et al.  Rhythmic cues to speech segmentation: Evidence from juncture misperception , 1992 .

[24]  Leading Up the Lexical Garden Path: Segmentation and Ambiguity in Spoken Word Recognition , 2002 .

[25]  Paul A. Luce,et al.  Abstractness and specificity in spoken word recognition: Indexical and allophonic variability in long-term repetition priming. , 2003 .

[26]  A. C. Gimson,et al.  An introduction to the pronunciation of English , 1991 .

[27]  Anne Cutler,et al.  The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access , 1988 .

[28]  A G Samuel,et al.  Knowing a Word Affects the Fundamental Perception of The Sounds Within it , 2001, Psychological science.

[29]  P C Gordon,et al.  Lexical and prelexical influences on word segmentation: evidence from priming. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[30]  Sven L Mattys,et al.  Stress versus coarticulation: toward an integrated approach to explicit speech segmentation. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  Laurence White,et al.  Structural influences on accentual lengthening in English , 1999 .

[32]  Laurence White,et al.  Integration of multiple speech segmentation cues: a hierarchical framework. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[33]  D. Norris.  Shortlist: a connectionist model of continuous speech recognition , 1994, Cognition.

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

[35]  Kenneth Ward Church.  Phonological parsing in speech recognition , 1987 .

[36]  Alice Turk,et al.  The domain of accentual lengthening in American English , 1997 .

[37]  P. Luce,et al.  Specificity of memory representations for spoken words , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[38]  J. McQueen.  Segmentation of Continuous Speech Using Phonotactics , 1998 .

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

[40]  Arthur G. Samuel,et al.  Phonemic Restoration: Insights From a New Methodology , 1981 .

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

[42]  L Polka,et al.  Perceptual equivalence of acoustic cues that differentiate /r/ and /l/. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[43]  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.

[44]  A. Samuel.  Lexical Activation Produces Potent Phonemic Percepts , 1997, Cognitive Psychology.

[45]  C. Connine.  Constraints on interactive processes in auditory word recognition: The role of sentence context , 1987 .

[46]  M. Brent,et al.  On the discovery of novel wordlike units from utterances: an artificial-language study with implications for native-language acquisition. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[47]  Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel,et al.  Glottalization of word-initial vowels as a function of prosodic structure , 1996 .

[48]  B. Repp.  Phonetic trading relations and context effects : new experimental evidence for a speech mode of perception , 1982 .

[49]  Dennis Norris,et al.  Signal detection theory and modularity: On being sensitive to the power of bias models of semantic priming. , 1995 .