Adults’ perception of native and nonnative vowels: Implications for the perceptual magnet effect

Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the perceptual magnet effect. In Experiment 1, Amer-ican English speakers representing diverse dialects were presented with a fine-grained set of stimuli (varying in just noticeable differences forF1 andF2) and indicated whether they heard “/i/” or “not /i/,” thus delimiting the /i/ portion of the vowel space for individual subjects. Then these same subjects selected their own /i/ prototype with a method-of-adjustment procedure. The data from this experiment were used to synthesize customized prototype and nonprototype stimulus sets for Experiment 2. In Experiment 2,24 of our original 37 subjects completed a discrimination task for each of three conditions, in which vector stimuli varied from the subject’s prototype, the nonprototype, or a foreign vowel (/y/) in 15-mel steps. Subjects displayed higher discrimination, as indexed byd′, for the nonprototype condition than they did for both the prototype and the foreign conditions. In addition, discrimination was better for variants further away from the referent in each condition. However, discrimination was not especially poor for stimuli close to subjects’ individual prototypes—a result that would have yielded the strongest support for the operation of a magnet effect. This negative finding, together with other aspects of our results, raises problems for any theory of vowel perception that relies solely on “one-size-fits-all” prototype representations.

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

[2]  J. Flege,et al.  Native Speakers of Spanish Show Rate-Dependent Processing of English Stop Consonants , 1995, Phonetica.

[3]  Richard Wright,et al.  The Hyperspace Effect: Phonetic Targets Are Hyperarticulated. , 1993 .

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

[5]  M. Studdert-Kennedy,et al.  Crosslanguage Study of Vowel Perception , 1969, Language and speech.

[6]  B. Ross,et al.  Concepts and Categories , 1994 .

[7]  Peter Ladefoged,et al.  Elements of Acoustic Phonetics , 1962 .

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

[9]  E. Rosch Cognitive reference points , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[10]  P. Kuhl,et al.  Categorization of Speech by Infants: Support for Speech-Sound Prototypes. , 1989 .

[11]  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.

[12]  F. Guenther,et al.  The perceptual magnet effect as an emergent property of neural map formation. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  K. Stevens,et al.  Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. , 1992, Science.

[14]  P Iverson,et al.  Mapping the perceptual magnet effect for speech using signal detection theory and multidimensional scaling. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Patricia K. Kuhl,et al.  Innate Predispositions and the Effects of Experience in Speech Perception: The Native Language Magnet Theory , 1993 .

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

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

[18]  E Uusipaikka,et al.  Perceptual magnet effect in the light of behavioral and psychophysiological data. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[20]  J. Sussman,et al.  Further tests of the "perceptual magnet effect" in the perception of [i]: identification and change/no-change discrimination. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  D B Pisoni,et al.  On prototypes and phonetic categories: a critical assessment of the perceptual magnet effect in speech perception. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  Patricia K. Kohl Early linguistic experience and phonetic perception: implications for theories of developmental speech perception , 1993 .

[23]  P. Kuhl,et al.  Influences of phonetic identification and category goodness on American listeners' perception of /r/ and /l/. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  Brian C. J. Moore,et al.  Detection of linear frequency glides as a function of frequency and duration , 1988 .

[25]  Peter W. Jusczyk,et al.  Some reflections on developmental changes in speech perception and production , 1993 .

[26]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection Theory: A User's Guide , 1991 .

[27]  Dennis H. Klatt,et al.  Software for a cascade/parallel formant synthesizer , 1980 .

[28]  J. Flanagan A Difference Limen for Vowel Formant Frequency , 1955 .