Learning a novel phonological contrast depends on interactions between individual differences and training paradigm design.

Studies evaluating phonological contrast learning typically investigate either the predictiveness of specific pretraining aptitude measures or the efficacy of different instructional paradigms. However, little research considers how these factors interact--whether different students learn better from different types of instruction--and what the psychological basis for any interaction might be. The present study demonstrates that successfully learning a foreign-language phonological contrast for pitch depends on an interaction between individual differences in perceptual abilities and the design of the training paradigm. Training from stimuli with high acoustic-phonetic variability is generally thought to improve learning; however, we found high-variability training enhanced learning only for individuals with strong perceptual abilities. Learners with weaker perceptual abilities were actually impaired by high-variability training relative to a low-variability condition. A second experiment assessing variations on the high-variability training design determined that the property of this learning environment most detrimental to perceptually weak learners is the amount of trial-by-trial variability. Learners' perceptual limitations can thus override the benefits of high-variability training where trial-by-trial variability in other irrelevant acoustic-phonetic features obfuscates access to the target feature. These results demonstrate the importance of considering individual differences in pretraining aptitudes when evaluating the efficacy of any speech training paradigm.

[1]  F. Paas,et al.  Variability of Worked Examples and Transfer of Geometrical Problem-Solving Skills: A Cognitive-Load Approach , 1994 .

[2]  Mitchell S. Sommers,et al.  EFFECTS OF ACOUSTIC VARIABILITY ON SECOND LANGUAGE VOCABULARY LEARNING , 2005, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[3]  Robert J. Zatorre,et al.  Individual differences in the acquisition of second language phonology , 2009, Brain and Language.

[4]  M. Reuter,et al.  Genetically Determined Differences in Learning from Errors , 2007, Science.

[5]  Antje S. Meyer,et al.  Individual differences in second language acquisition , 2012 .

[6]  R. Oostenveld,et al.  Increased auditory cortical representation in musicians , 1998, Nature.

[7]  R. Oxford,et al.  Cognition Plus: Correlates Of Language Learning Success , 1995 .

[8]  Vera Kempe,et al.  The role of learner and input variables in learning inflectional morphology , 2006, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[9]  G. Studebaker A "rationalized" arcsine transform. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[10]  Tyler K. Perrachione,et al.  Learning pitch patterns in lexical identification by native English-speaking adults , 2007, Applied Psycholinguistics.

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

[12]  R. Sternberg,et al.  Are Cognitive Styles Still in Style , 1997 .

[13]  Erika Skoe,et al.  Plasticity in the Adult Human Auditory Brainstem following Short-term Linguistic Training , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[14]  Bin Li,et al.  Effects of two training procedures in cross-language perception of tones , 2008, J. Phonetics.

[15]  Daniel Bendor,et al.  Cortical representations of pitch in monkeys and humans , 2006, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[16]  James Emil Flege,et al.  Two procedures for training a novel second language phonetic contrast , 1995, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[17]  J. Mullennix,et al.  Talker Variability in Speech Processing , 1997 .

[18]  H. Nusbaum,et al.  Neural Bases of Talker Normalization , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[19]  Patrick C M Wong,et al.  Individual variability in cue-weighting and lexical tone learning. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Steve Majerus,et al.  Lexical learning in bilingual adults: The relative importance of short-term memory for serial order and phonological knowledge , 2008, Cognition.

[21]  Gui Xue,et al.  Neural predictors of auditory word learning , 2008, Neuroreport.

[22]  Tyler K. Perrachione,et al.  Neural characteristics of successful and less successful speech and word learning in adults , 2007, Human brain mapping.

[23]  Albert Costa,et al.  Brain potentials to native phoneme discrimination reveal the origin of individual differences in learning the sounds of a second language , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  Alexander L. Francis,et al.  Electrophysiological Evidence for Early Interaction between Talker and Linguistic Information during Speech Perception , 2006 .

[26]  Peter Robinson,et al.  Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition , 2001 .

[27]  Nick C. Ellis,et al.  Phonological sequence learning and short-term store capacity determine second language vocabulary acquisition , 2004, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[28]  L. Cronbach,et al.  Aptitude and instructional methods , 1977 .

[29]  Michel Eichelbaum,et al.  Pharmacogenomics and individualized drug therapy. , 2006, Annual review of medicine.

[30]  Y. Dan,et al.  Synaptic Mechanisms of Direction Selectivity in Primary Auditory Cortex , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[31]  S. Hochstein,et al.  Reverse hierarchies and sensory learning , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[32]  L E Marks,et al.  Processing linguistic and perceptual dimensions of speech: interactions in speeded classification. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[33]  M. Besson,et al.  Musical training influences linguistic abilities in 8-year-old children: more evidence for brain plasticity. , 2009, Cerebral cortex.

[34]  W. Raub From the National Institutes of Health. , 1990, JAMA.

[35]  Sarah C. Creel,et al.  Heeding the voice of experience: The role of talker variation in lexical access , 2008, Cognition.

[36]  Mitchell S. Sommers,et al.  An integrated account of the effects of acoustic variability in first language and second language: Evidence from amplitude, fundamental frequency, and speaking rate variability , 2007, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[37]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: a first report. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  A. Jongman,et al.  Training American listeners to perceive Mandarin tones. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  D. Hardison Acquisition of second-language speech: Effects of visual cues, context, and talker variability , 2003, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[40]  V. Blinov,et al.  Genetic Correlates of Musical Pitch Recognition in Humans , 2007 .

[41]  Chieh-Fang Hu Phonological Memory, Phonological Awareness, and Foreign Language Word Learning , 2003 .

[42]  D. Ladd,et al.  Linguistic tone is related to the population frequency of the adaptive haplogroups of two brain size genes, ASPM and Microcephalin , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[43]  Sarah A. Hezlett,et al.  Standardized Tests Predict Graduate Students' Success , 2007, Science.

[44]  R. Fay,et al.  Pitch : neural coding and perception , 2005 .

[45]  Sarah A. Hezlett,et al.  Academic performance, career potential, creativity, and job performance: can one construct predict them all? , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[46]  W. Montague,et al.  Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction , 1980 .

[47]  M P A Page,et al.  A model linking immediate serial recall, the Hebb repetition effect and the learning of phonological word forms , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[48]  H. Cheung Nonword Span as a Unique Predictor of Second-Language Vocabulary Learning. , 1996 .

[49]  Alysia D. Roehrig,et al.  Teacher Quality Moderates the Genetic Effects on Early Reading , 2010, Science.

[50]  D B Pisoni,et al.  Stimulus variability and spoken word recognition. I. Effects of variability in speaking rate and overall amplitude. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[51]  P K Kuhl,et al.  The encoding of rate and talker information during phonetic perception , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[52]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. II: The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[53]  J. Norris,et al.  Does Type of Instruction Make a Difference? Substantive Findings From a Meta‐analytic Review , 2001 .

[54]  Robert J Zatorre,et al.  Anatomical Correlates of Learning Novel Speech Sounds , 2002, Neuron.

[55]  Patrick C M Wong,et al.  Volume of left Heschl's Gyrus and linguistic pitch learning. , 2008, Cerebral cortex.

[56]  A. Oxenham,et al.  Overview : The present and future of pitch , 2005 .

[57]  D. Pisoni,et al.  SPEECH PERCEPTION AS A TALKER-CONTINGENT PROCESS. , 1993, Psychological science.

[58]  H. Nusbaum,et al.  Acoustic differences, listener expectations, and the perceptual accommodation of talker variability. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[59]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Effects of talker, rate, and amplitude variation on recognition memory for spoken words , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[60]  S. Hochstein,et al.  The reverse hierarchy theory of visual perceptual learning , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[61]  G. Schlaug,et al.  Tone Deafness: A New Disconnection Syndrome? , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[62]  J. Kingston Learning Foreign Vowels , 2003, Language and speech.

[63]  D B Pisoni,et al.  Stimulus variability and processing dependencies in speech perception , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[64]  Cynthia G. Clopper,et al.  Effects of Talker Variability on Perceptual Learning of Dialects , 2004, Language and speech.

[65]  Nicole M. Russo,et al.  Musical experience shapes human brainstem encoding of linguistic pitch patterns , 2007, Nature Neuroscience.