The distinctness of speakers' /s/-/S/ contrast is related to their auditory discrimination and use of an articulatory saturation effect.

This study examines individual differences in producing the sibilant contrast in American English and the relation of those differences to 2 speaker characteristics: (a) use of a quantal biomechanical effect (called a "saturation effect") in producing the sibilants and (b) performance on a test of sibilant discrimination. Twenty participants produced the sibilants /s/ and /S/ in normal-, clear-, and fast-speaking conditions. The degree to which the participants used a saturation effect in producing /s/ and /S/ was assessed with a custom-made sensor that measured contact of the underside of the tongue tip with the lower alveolar ridge; such contact normally occurs during the production of /s/ but not /S/. The acuteness of the participants' discrimination of the sibilant contrast was measured using the ABX paradigm and synthesized sibilants. Differences among speakers in the degree of acoustic contrast between /s/ and /S/ that they produced proved related to differences among them in their use of contact contrastively and in their discriminative performance. The most distinct sibilant productions were obtained from participants who used contact in producing /s/ but not /S/ and who had high discrimination scores. The participants who did not use contact differentially when producing the 2 sibilants and who also discriminated the synthetic sibilants less well produced the least distinct sibilant contrasts. Intermediate degrees of sibilant contrast were found with participants who used contact differentially or discriminated well. These findings are compatible with a model of speech motor planning in which goals for phonemic speech movements are in somatosensory and auditory spaces.

[1]  J S Perkell,et al.  A preliminary study of the effects of cochlear implants on the production of sibilants. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  Satrajit S. Ghosh,et al.  A Model of Cortical and Cerebellar Function in Speech , 2003 .

[3]  H Lane,et al.  Speech of cochlear implant patients: a longitudinal study of vowel production. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Kenneth N. Stevens,et al.  On the quantal nature of speech , 1972 .

[5]  F H Guenther,et al.  Speech sound acquisition, coarticulation, and rate effects in a neural network model of speech production. , 1995, Psychological review.

[6]  A. Jongman,et al.  Acoustic characteristics of English fricatives. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  P. Milenkovic,et al.  Statistical analysis of word-initial voiceless obstruents: preliminary data. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  A. Bosman,et al.  Changes in vowel quality in post-lingually deafened cochlear implant users. , 1997, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[9]  J. Perkell,et al.  The distinctness of speakers' productions of vowel contrasts is related to their discrimination of the contrasts. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Christine H. Shadle,et al.  A parametric study of the spectral characteristics of European Portuguese fricatives , 2002, J. Phonetics.

[11]  Rochelle S Newman,et al.  Using links between speech perception and speech production to evaluate different acoustic metrics: a preliminary report. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  B. Lindblom Phonetic Universals in Vowel Systems , 1986 .

[13]  F. Guenther,et al.  A theoretical investigation of reference frames for the planning of speech movements. , 1998 .

[14]  Shrikanth S. Narayanan,et al.  An articulatory study of fricative consonants using magnetic resonance imaging , 1995 .

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

[16]  Pascal Perrier,et al.  A theory of speech motor control and supporting data from speakers with normal hearing and with profound hearing loss , 2000, J. Phonetics.

[17]  J S Perkell,et al.  Covariation of cochlear implant users' perception and production of vowel contrasts and their identification by listeners with normal hearing. , 2001, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[18]  M. Hildesheimer,et al.  The effect of partially restored hearing on speech production of postlingually deafened adults with multichannel cochlear implants. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  Björn Lindblom,et al.  Explaining Phonetic Variation: A Sketch of the H&H Theory , 1990 .

[20]  A. Liberman,et al.  The discrimination of relative onset-time of the components of certain speech and nonspeech patterns. , 1961, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

[22]  J. Schwartz,et al.  The Dispersion-Focalization Theory of vowel systems , 1997 .

[23]  Kenneth N Stevens,et al.  Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.