Perceptual order and the effect of vocalic context on fricative perception

This three-part study demonstrates that perceptual order can influence the integration of acoustic speech cues. In Experiment 1, the subjects labeled the [s] and [∫] in natural FV and VF syllables in which the frication was replaced with synthetic stimuli. Responses to these “hybrid” stimuli were influenced by cues in the vocalic segment as well as by the synthetic frication. However, the influence of the preceding vocalic cues was considerably weaker than was that of the following vocalic cues. Experiment 2 examined the acoustic bases for this asymmetry and consisted of analyses revealing that FV and VF syllables are similar in terms of the acoustic structures thought to underlie the vocalic context effects. Experiment 3 examined the perceptual bases for the asymmetry. A subset of the hybrid FV and VF stimuli were presented inreverse, such that the acoustic and perceptual bases for the asymmetry were pitted against each other in the listening task. The perceptual bases (i.e., the perceived order of the frication and vocalic cues) proved to be the determining factor. Current auditory processing models, such as backward recognition masking, preperceptual auditory storage, or models based on linguistic factors, do not adequately account for the observed asymmetries.

[1]  N. W. McLachlan,et al.  Sound Waves of Finite Amplitude in an Exponential Horn , 1935 .

[2]  P. Denes Effect of Duration on the Perception of Voicing , 1955 .

[3]  K. Harris Cues for the Discrimination of American English Fricatives in Spoken Syllables , 1958 .

[4]  K. Stevens,et al.  On the Properties of Voiceless Fricative Consonants , 1961 .

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

[6]  L. V. Bondarko The Syllable Structure of Speech and Distinctive Features of Phonemes , 1969 .

[7]  D. Massaro Preperceptual auditory images. , 1970, Journal of experimental psychology.

[8]  Robert G. Crowder,et al.  The sound of vowels and consonants in immediate memory , 1971 .

[9]  D. Massaro Preperceptual images, processing time, and perceptual units in auditory perception. , 1972, Psychological review.

[10]  D. J. Sharf,et al.  Identification of Place of Consonant Articulation from Vowel Formant Transitions , 1972 .

[11]  R. G. Crowder,et al.  Representation of speech sounds in precategorical acoustic storage. , 1973, Journal of experimental psychology.

[12]  David B. Pisoni Perceptual Processing Time for Consonants and Vowels , 1973 .

[13]  Alan D. Baddeley,et al.  Acoustic memory and the perception of speech , 1974 .

[14]  D. J. Sharf,et al.  Identification of Consonants from Formant Transitions Presented Forward and Backward , 1974, Language and speech.

[15]  John E. Markel,et al.  Linear Prediction of Speech , 1976, Communication and Cybernetics.

[16]  Rate of perceptual processing , 1977, Psychological research.

[17]  H. Javkin,et al.  Phonetic Universals and Phonological Change , 1977 .

[18]  M. Dorman,et al.  Vowel Recognition: Inferences from Studies of Forward and Backward Masking , 1977 .

[19]  M. Studdert-Kennedy,et al.  Stop-consonant recognition: Release bursts and formant transitions as functionally equivalent, context-dependent cues , 1977 .

[20]  B H Repp,et al.  Perceptual integration of acoustic cues for stop, fricative, and affricate manner. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  B. Repp Perceptual integration and differentiation of spectral cues for intervocalic stop consonants , 1978, Perception & psychophysics.

[22]  D. Massaro,et al.  The contribution of vowel duration, F0 contour, and frication duration as cues to the/juz/-/jus/distinction , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[23]  V. Mann Influence of preceding liquid on stop-consonant perception , 1980 .

[24]  V. Mann,et al.  Influence of vocalic context on perception of the [∫]-[s] distinction , 1978 .

[25]  S. Soli,et al.  Recognition of vowels from information in fricatives: perceptual evidence of fricative-vowel coarticulation. , 1981, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  B H Repp,et al.  Two strategies in fricative discrimination , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[27]  S. Soli Second formants in fricatives: Acoustic consequences of fricative‐vowel coarticulation , 1981 .

[28]  V. Mann,et al.  Influence of preceding fricative on stop consonant perception. , 1981, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  Catherine T. Best,et al.  Perceptual equivalence of acoustic cues in speech and nonspeech perception , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[30]  D. Whalen Effects of vocalic formant transitions and vowel quality on the English [s]-[ŝ] boundary. , 1981, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  S. Soli Structure and duration of vowels together specify fricative voicing. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  Alvin M. Liberman,et al.  Some differences between phonetic and auditory modes of perception , 1983, Cognition.

[33]  D. Whalen Vowel Information in Postvocalic Fricative Noises , 1983, Language and speech.

[34]  J. Ohala,et al.  Prosodic phonology and phonetics , 1984, Phonology Yearbook.

[35]  A. Liberman,et al.  The motor theory of speech perception revised , 1985, Cognition.

[36]  J. Mullennix,et al.  Integral processing of phonemes: evidence for a phonetic mode of perception. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[37]  C. Penney Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory , 1989, Memory & cognition.

[38]  R. Shilling,et al.  Auditory backward recognition masking: Effect of interaural phase on masker efficacy , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.