Consonant confusions in noise: a study of perceptual features.

Consonant confusion matrices were obtained for four sets of CV and VC nonsense syllables presented both in quiet and in the presence of a masking noise. A sequential method of partitioning transmitted information for confusion matrices was developed and used to test the hypothesis that when the internal redundancy of feature systems is taken into account, certain articulatory and phonological features of consonants consistently account for transmitted information better than other, closely related, features. Results of the analyses indicate that for most confusion matrices several feature systems can be shown to account equally well for transmitted information, and that across syllable sets and listening conditions, there is little consistency in the identification of perceptually important features. The implication of these findings with respect to the existence of natural perceptual features for consonants is discussed.

[1]  G. A. Miller,et al.  An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants , 1955 .

[2]  Irwin Pollack,et al.  Masking of Speech by Noise at High Sound Levels , 1958 .

[3]  Robert W. Peters Dimensions of Perception for Consonants , 1963 .

[4]  K. Wilson Multidimensional analyses of confusions of English consonants. , 1963, The American journal of psychology.

[5]  S. Singh Crosslanguage study of perceptual confusion of plosive phonemes in two conditions of distortion. , 1966, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  S. Singh,et al.  Study of twenty-six intervocalic consonants as spoken and recognized by four language groups. , 1966, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  D. Klatt Structure of confusions in short-term memory between English consonants. , 1968, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Sound Pattern of English , 1968 .

[9]  Consonant discrimination by seven year olds: A pilot study , 1968 .

[10]  Sadanand Singh A DISTINCTIVE-FEATURE ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO A MULTIPLE-CHOICE INTELLIGIBILITY TEST , 1968 .

[11]  R. Tikofsky,et al.  Distinctive features and response latency: A pilot study , 1969 .

[12]  S S Agrawal,et al.  Significant features in the perception of (Hindi) consonants. , 1969, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Perception of (Hindi) consonants in clipped speech. , 1969, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  W. R. Garner,et al.  Perceptual independence: definitions, models, and experimental paradigms. , 1969, Psychological bulletin.

[15]  D. Dirks,et al.  Effect of pulsed masking on selected speech materials. , 1969, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  M. Wish An INDSCAL Analysis of the Miller‐Nicely Consonant Confusion Data , 1971 .

[17]  S. Singh,et al.  Perceptual structure of 12 American English vowels. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  A S House,et al.  Phonological oppositions in children: a perceptual study. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  S Singh,et al.  Perceptual structure of 22 prevocalic English consonants. , 1972, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Ronald A. Cole,et al.  Distinctive feature control of decision time: Same-different judgments of simultaneously heard phonemes , 1972 .

[21]  Perceptual Features of Nine English Consonants Determined by Choice Reaction Time , 1972 .

[22]  An Alternative MD‐SCAL Analysis of the Graham and House Data , 1972 .

[23]  W. R. Garner Uncertainty and structure as psychological concepts , 1975 .