Perceiving the causes of coarticulatory acoustic variation: Consonant voicing and vowel pitch

Coarticulatory acoustic variation is presumed to be caused by temporally overlapping linguistically significant gestures of the vocal tract. The complex acoustic consequences of such gestures can be hypothesized to specify them without recourse to context-sensitive representations of phonetic segments. When the consequences of separate gestures converge on a common acoustic dimension (e.g., fundamental frequency), perceptual parsing of the acoustic consequences of overlapping spoken gestures, rather than associations of acoustic features, is required to resolve the distinct gestural events. Direct tests of this theory were conducted. These tests revealed mutual influences of (1) fundamental frequency during a vowel on prior consonant perception, and (2) consonant identity on following vowel stress and pitch perception. The results of these converging tests lead to the conclusion that speech perception involves a process in which acoustic information for coarticulated gestures is parsed from the stream of speech.

[1]  Carol A. Fowler,et al.  Realism and unrealism: a reply , 1983 .

[2]  Mark Haggard,et al.  Psychoacoustical and cultural determinants of phoneme boundaries: evidence from trading F0 cues in the voiced–voiceless distinction , 1981 .

[3]  C A Fowler,et al.  Listeners do hear sounds, not tongues. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Carol A. Fowler,et al.  Coarticulation and theories of extrinsic timing , 1980 .

[5]  J. Kelso,et al.  Functionally specific articulatory cooperation following jaw perturbations during speech: evidence for coordinative structures. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  R. Diehl,et al.  On the Objects of Speech Perception , 1989 .

[7]  J. Sawusch,et al.  Auditory coding, cues, and coherence in phonetic perception. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  P R Killeen,et al.  Japanese quail can learn phonetic categories. , 1987, Science.

[9]  C. Fowler Segmentation of coarticulated speech in perception , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  A Löfqvist,et al.  Laryngeal muscles and articulatory control. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Patricia K. Kuhl,et al.  The special-mechanisms debate in speech research: Categorization tests on animals and infants. , 1987 .

[12]  Jean-Marie Humbert,et al.  Consonant Types, Vowel Quality, and Tone , 1978 .

[13]  Elissa L. Newport,et al.  Adaptation of speech by nonspeech: evidence for complex acoustic cue detectors. , 1979 .

[14]  D H Whalen,et al.  Gradient Effects of Fundamental Frequency on Stop Consonant Voicing Judgments , 1990, Phonetica.

[15]  A Löfqvist,et al.  The cricothyroid muscle in voicing control. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  R. Remez A guide to research on the perception of speech. , 1994 .

[17]  R L Diehl,et al.  Effect of Fundamental Frequency on Medial [+Voice] / [–Voice] Judgments , 1995, Phonetica.

[18]  C A Fowler,et al.  Coordination and Coarticulation in Speech Production , 1993, Language and speech.

[19]  A M Liberman,et al.  Perception of the speech code. , 1967, Psychological review.

[20]  Keith R. Kluender,et al.  Speech perception as a tractable problem in cognitive science. , 1994 .

[21]  C A Fowler,et al.  Production and perception of coarticulation among stressed and unstressed vowels. , 1981, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[22]  A. Samuel The role of bottom-up confirmation in the phonemic restoration illusion. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  Kim E. A. Silverman,et al.  F₀ Segmental Cues Depend on Intonation: The Case of the Rise after Voiced Stops , 1986 .

[24]  G. E. Peterson,et al.  Some Basic Considerations in the Analysis of Intonation , 1960 .

[25]  C A Fowler,et al.  Intrinsicf0 differences in spoken and sung vowels and their perception by listeners , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[26]  Keith R. Kluender,et al.  Reply to Commentators , 1989 .