Characteristics of listener sensitivity to talker-specific phonetic detail.

Previous research shows that listeners are sensitive to talker differences in phonetic properties of speech, including voice-onset-time (VOT) in word-initial voiceless stop consonants, and that learning how a talker produces one voiceless stop transfers to another word with the same voiceless stop [Allen, J. S., and Miller, J. L. (2004). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115, 3171-3183]. The present experiments examined whether transfer extends to words that begin with different voiceless stops. During training, listeners heard two talkers produce a given voiceless-initial word (e.g., pain). VOTs were manipulated such that one talker produced the voiceless stop with relatively short VOTs and the other with relatively long VOTs. At test, listeners heard a short- and long-VOT variant of the same word (e.g., pain) or a word beginning with a different voiceless stop (e.g., cane or coal), and were asked to select which of the two VOT variants was most representative of a given talker. In all conditions, which variant was selected at test was in line with listeners' exposure during training, and the effect was equally strong for the novel word and the training word. These findings suggest that accommodating talker-specific phonetic detail does not require exposure to each individual phonetic segment.

[1]  A. Samuel,et al.  Perceptual learning for speech , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[2]  Rachel M. Theodore,et al.  Individual talker differences in voice-onset-time: contextual influences. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Tessa Bent,et al.  Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech , 2008, Cognition.

[4]  A. Samuel,et al.  Perceptual adjustments to multiple speakers , 2007 .

[5]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Phonological Abstraction in the Mental Lexicon , 2006, Cogn. Sci..

[6]  A. Samuel,et al.  Generalization in perceptual learning for speech , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[7]  A. Samuel,et al.  Perceptual learning for speech: Is there a return to normal? , 2005, Cognitive Psychology.

[8]  J. McQueen,et al.  The specificity of perceptual learning in speech processing , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  Constance M. Clarke,et al.  Rapid adaptation to foreign-accented English. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Joanne L. Miller,et al.  Listener sensitivity to individual talker differences in voice-onset-time. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  David DeSteno,et al.  Individual talker differences in voice-onset-time. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer , 2002 .

[13]  R. Newman,et al.  The perceptual consequences of within-talker variability in fricative production. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  J L Miller,et al.  Contextual influences on the internal structure of phonetic categories: a distinction between lexical status and speaking rate. , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  L C Nygaard,et al.  Surface form typicality and asymmetric transfer in episodic memory for spoken words. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[16]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Recognition of spoken words by native and non-native listeners: talker-, listener-, and item-related factors. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Taehong Cho,et al.  Variation and universals in VOT: evidence from 18 languages , 1999 .

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

[19]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Talker-specific learning in speech perception , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[20]  Jennifer M. Fellowes,et al.  Talker identification based on phonetic information. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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

[23]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Speech Perception as a Talker-Contingent Process , 1993, Psychological science.

[24]  D. Schacter,et al.  Perceptual specificity of auditory priming: implicit memory for voice intonation and fundamental frequency. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[25]  S. Goldinger,et al.  Episodic encoding of voice attributes and recognition memory for spoken words. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[26]  D. Schacter,et al.  Auditory priming: implicit and explicit memory for words and voices. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[27]  P. Kuhl Human adults and human infants show a “perceptual magnet effect” for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[29]  J. Perkell,et al.  Invariance and variability in speech processes , 1987 .

[30]  A. Reeves,et al.  Speaking Rate and Segments: A Look at the Relation between Speech Production and Speech Perception for the Voicing Contrast , 1986 .

[31]  J. L. Miller,et al.  Articulation Rate and Its Variability in Spontaneous Speech: A Reanalysis and Some Implications , 1984, Phonetica.

[32]  A G Samuel,et al.  Phonetic prototypes , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[34]  A. Liberman,et al.  Acoustic Loci and Transitional Cues for Consonants , 1954 .

[35]  G. E. Peterson,et al.  Control Methods Used in a Study of the Vowels , 1951 .