The Handbook of Speech Perception

Здесь есть возможность читать онлайн «The Handbook of Speech Perception» — ознакомительный отрывок электронной книги совершенно бесплатно, а после прочтения отрывка купить полную версию. В некоторых случаях можно слушать аудио, скачать через торрент в формате fb2 и присутствует краткое содержание. Жанр: unrecognised, на английском языке. Описание произведения, (предисловие) а так же отзывы посетителей доступны на портале библиотеки ЛибКат.

The Handbook of Speech Perception: краткое содержание, описание и аннотация

Предлагаем к чтению аннотацию, описание, краткое содержание или предисловие (зависит от того, что написал сам автор книги «The Handbook of Speech Perception»). Если вы не нашли необходимую информацию о книге — напишите в комментариях, мы постараемся отыскать её.

A wide-ranging and authoritative volume exploring contemporary perceptual research on speech, updated with new original essays by leading researchers Speech perception is a dynamic area of study that encompasses a wide variety of disciplines, including cognitive neuroscience, phonetics, linguistics, physiology and biophysics, auditory and speech science, and experimental psychology.
, Second Edition, is a comprehensive and up-to-date survey of technical and theoretical developments in perceptual research on human speech. Offering a variety of perspectives on the perception of spoken language, this volume provides original essays by leading researchers on the major issues and most recent findings in the field. Each chapter provides an informed and critical survey, including a summary of current research and debate, clear examples and research findings, and discussion of anticipated advances and potential research directions. The timely second edition of this valuable resource:
Discusses a uniquely broad range of both foundational and emerging issues in the field Surveys the major areas of the field of human speech perception Features newly commissioned essays on the relation between speech perception and reading, features in speech perception and lexical access, perceptual identification of individual talkers, and perceptual learning of accented speech Includes essential revisions of many chapters original to the first edition Offers critical introductions to recent research literature and leading field developments Encourages the development of multidisciplinary research on speech perception Provides readers with clear understanding of the aims, methods, challenges, and prospects for advances in the field
, Second Edition, is ideal for both specialists and non-specialists throughout the research community looking for a comprehensive view of the latest technical and theoretical accomplishments in the field.

The Handbook of Speech Perception — читать онлайн ознакомительный отрывок

Ниже представлен текст книги, разбитый по страницам. Система сохранения места последней прочитанной страницы, позволяет с удобством читать онлайн бесплатно книгу «The Handbook of Speech Perception», без необходимости каждый раз заново искать на чём Вы остановились. Поставьте закладку, и сможете в любой момент перейти на страницу, на которой закончили чтение.

Тёмная тема
Сбросить

Интервал:

Закладка:

Сделать

Taken together, these findings provide further evidence that (1) features are used in mapping from sounds to words; (2) importantly, even nonwords access the lexicon, with activation of a lexical entry a function of the number of overlapping features shared; and (3) the activation of a lexical entry is graded, the extent of the activation being a function of the goodness of fit between the auditory input and its lexical phonological (feature) representation; and (4) the degree to which a lexical representation is activated has a cascading effect on the degree of activation of its lexical semantic network.

Features: Binary or graded

In linguistic theory, features are binary; that is, they are either present (+) or absent (−). For example, the stop consonant [d] would be marked as [−nasal] to contrast it from the nasal consonant [n] which is marked [+nasal].The preceding section on “Feature dimensions” in speech perception and lexical access is consistent with this view. However, it has long been known that membership in phonetic categories is not all‐or‐none. Rather, there is a range of values associated with parameters or features of speech with some values appearing to be more representative than others. On the face of it, it would suggest then that, in speech perception, features may be graded. What is critical is whether such graded representations influence not only speech‐perception processes but also lexical access processes. We now turn to this question.

As we shall see, experimental evidence challenges the view that features are binary and rather supports the view that features are graded. This has consequences not only for speech‐perception processes but also for the mapping from phonetic category representations to lexical representations and for ultimately accessing the lexical semantic network.

Speech perception

Asking participants to categorize a continuum of speech stimuli varying in equal acoustic steps from one phonetic category to another results in a categorical‐like function, for example, [d] to [t] varying in 10 millisecond (ms) voice‐onset time steps. There is a range of stimuli consistently categorized as [d] and a range of stimuli consistently categorized as [t], with one or two stimuli at the edges of or on the boundary between the two categories less consistently categorized. Nonetheless, it turns out that not all members within a phonetic category are perceived equally.

Using more sensitive measures than phonetic categorization including reaction time (Pisoni & Tash, 1974) and judgments of category goodness (Miller, 1997; Iverson & Kuhl, 1996), speech‐perception studies have shown that listener reaction times are slower in identifying a stimulus on a continuum, and their judgments of category goodness are reduced as stimuli approach the phonetic category boundary. Variations in task requirements support the robustness of these gradient effects (e.g. Carney, Widin, & Viemeister, 1977). Thus, phonetic categories are graded and have an internal structure to them (see Miller, 1997). In this sense, categories are not truly binary representations that are either present or absent, but rather some exemplars of a category are better representations of the category than others.

Such findings support a functional architecture in which the degree of activation of a representation is itself graded and influences, as well, the degree of activation of potential competitors. As a stimulus approaches the phonetic category boundary, its activation decreases and there is a concomitant increase in the activation, and hence the extent of competition with the contrasting phonetic category representation. For example, assume a [da]–[ta] continuum ranging in 10 ms steps from 0–40 ms voice onset time (VOT) with a category boundary of 20 ms. As described earlier, there is competition between stimuli that share acoustic properties. Thus, presentation of a 40 ms stimulus (perceived as a [d]) would compete with the representation of the contrasting voiced phonetic category [t]. However, a stimulus with a VOT of 30 ms is a poorer exemplar of the voiceless phonetic category, and thus not only does it activate the phonetic representation of [t] more weakly, but there is an increase in the activation of the contrasting voiced phonetic category [d] (see Blumstein, Myers, & Rissman, 2005).

Neural evidence also supports the gradient nature of phonetic categories. Both temporal and frontal areas show graded responses as a function of the goodness of the phonetic category input, with the least activation for the best exemplar of the phonetic category and increased activation as stimuli on a continuum approach the phonetic category boundary (Blumstein, Myers, & Rissman, 2005; Frye et al., 2007; Guenther et al., 2004). Importantly, other neural areas (middle frontal gyrus, supramarginal gyrus) fail to show such graded activation, displaying sensitivity only to between‐phonetic‐category and not to within‐phonetic‐category differences (Joanisse, Zevin, & McCandliss, 2007; Myers et al., 2009). That there is both graded and categorical perception of phonetic categories reflects two critical aspects of speech perception: the need for sensitivity to fine acoustic differences on the one hand, and sensitivity to category membership on the other. We will return to this point in the Conclusion of this chapter.

Lexical access

Results showing that the perception of phonetic categories is graded and is influenced by the goodness of the stimulus input raises the question of potential effects on lexical access. One possibility is that phonetic category membership is resolved at the phonetic‐phonological level and the fine acoustic differences leading to graded responses at this level are not mapped onto higher levels of processing. Alternatively, given the functional architecture of the speech and lexical processing system proposed earlier, graded phonetic category representations should influence the mapping from the phonetic‐phonological levels to lexical representations. Results of a series of experiments using various methodologies support this latter hypothesis.

Using the visual world paradigm, it has been shown that access to lexical representations is affected by the fine acoustic structure of the auditory input. In particular, it has been shown that looks to a visual target are affected by within‐phonetic‐category acoustic differences (McMurray, Tanenhaus, & Aslin, 2002; see also McMurray, Tanenhaus, & Aslin, 2009). In the 2002 study of McMurray and colleagues, eye movements were measured as participants identified a named target word (using a mouse click) from an array of four pictures. The pictures consisted of a target word whose name began with a labial stop consonant, for example pear , a minimal pair of the target bear , and two phonologically unrelated words, for example lamp and ship . The auditorily presented names varied along a [b]–[p] VOT continuum ranging from 0–40 ms in 5 ms steps. Results showed graded responses with increasing looks to the competitor minimal pair (i.e. bear ) as the acoustic‐phonetic input (a VOT variant of [p]) approached the phonetic boundary. These findings show that lexical access is indeed graded.

Perhaps stronger evidence of the effects of within‐phonetic‐category differences on access to higher levels of processing comes from studies showing that within‐phonetic‐category effects not only influence access to lexical representations but also cascade to the lexical semantic network. Examining semantic priming in a lexical decision task, Andruski Blumstein, and Burton (1994) presented prime words semantically related to a target stimulus in which the initial voiceless stop consonant of the prime was an exemplar stimulus (spoken naturally and acoustically unmodified) or it was a poorer exemplar of the voiceless stop phonetic category (the VOT was reduced by one third or two thirds). Shortening the VOT of the stimuli rendered them closer to the voiced phonetic category boundary. Importantly, pilot work showed that stimuli presented alone were perceived correctly as beginning with voiceless stop consonants. However, the reduction of the VOT for the acoustically modified stimuli resulted in a reduction in the magnitude of semantic priming relative to the unmodified prime stimuli, particularly for the primes reduced by two thirds.

Читать дальше
Тёмная тема
Сбросить

Интервал:

Закладка:

Сделать

Похожие книги на «The Handbook of Speech Perception»

Представляем Вашему вниманию похожие книги на «The Handbook of Speech Perception» списком для выбора. Мы отобрали схожую по названию и смыслу литературу в надежде предоставить читателям больше вариантов отыскать новые, интересные, ещё непрочитанные произведения.


Отзывы о книге «The Handbook of Speech Perception»

Обсуждение, отзывы о книге «The Handbook of Speech Perception» и просто собственные мнения читателей. Оставьте ваши комментарии, напишите, что Вы думаете о произведении, его смысле или главных героях. Укажите что конкретно понравилось, а что нет, и почему Вы так считаете.

x