Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:07:17.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes in voicing perception by adult French speakers after identification training

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2013

GREGORY COLLET ,
CÉCILE COLIN ,
WILLY SERNICLAES ,
INGRID HOONHORST ,
EMILY MARKESSIS ,
PAUL DELTENRE  and
JACQUELINE LEYBAERT
GREGORY COLLET*
Affiliation:
Ecole Royale Militaire, Université Libre de Bruxelles, and Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique
CÉCILE COLIN
Affiliation:
Université Libre de Bruxelles
WILLY SERNICLAES
Affiliation:
Université Libre de Bruxelles
INGRID HOONHORST
Affiliation:
Université Libre de Bruxelles
EMILY MARKESSIS
Affiliation:
Institut Libre Marie Haps
PAUL DELTENRE
Affiliation:
Université Libre de Bruxelles
JACQUELINE LEYBAERT
Affiliation:
Université Libre de Bruxelles
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Gregory Collet, Unité de recherche en Neurosciences Cognitives and Laboratoire Cognition Langage Développement, Université Libre de Bruxelles, CP 191, 50 Avenue F. D. Roosevelt, Bruxelles 1050, Belgium. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate changes in voicing identification, discrimination, and categorical perception induced by identification training centered on three different training values. One group of French-speaking adults was trained across a universal auditory boundary (−30 ms voice onset time), and two other groups were trained across arbitrary boundaries (−45 or −60 ms voice onset time). A control group did not receive any training. The results showed that both the −30 and the −45 training groups exhibited a 10 ms shift in the identification boundary. Moreover, for the −30 training group, discrimination and categorical perception changed around the French phonological boundary. These results illustrate the possibility of modifying the French phonological perception after short-time training, particularly when centered on a universal boundary. However, training only had limited effects and even strengthened the phonological boundary, congruent with the hypothesis that this boundary is acquired by a perceptual “coupling” between universal boundaries.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , March 2015 , pp. 463 - 483
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abramson, A. S., & Lisker, L. (1970). Discriminability along the voice onset time continuum: Cross-language tests. In Hala, B., Romporti, M., & Jonota, P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 569–573). Ismaning, Germany: Hueber.Google Scholar
Aslin, R. N., Pisoni, D. B., Hennessy, B. L., & Perey, A. V. (1981). Discrimination of voice onset time by human infants: New findings and implications for the effect of early experience. Child Development, 52, 1135–1145.Google Scholar
Bogliotti, C., Serniclaes, W., Messaoud-Galusi, S., & Sprenger-Charolles, L. (2008). Discrimination of speech sounds by dyslexic children: Comparisons with chronological age and reading level controls. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 101, 137–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burnham, D. K., Earnshaw, L. J., & Clark, J. E. (1991). Development of categorical identification of native and non-native bilabial stops: Infants children and adults. Journal of Child Language, 18, 231–260.Google Scholar
Carré, R. (2004). Program SyntFormVoy [Computer software]. Lyon, France: Laboratoire Dynamique du Language, CNRS.Google Scholar
Collet, G., Colin, C., Serniclaes, W., Hoonhorst, I., Markessis, E., Deltenre, P., et al. (2012). Effect of phonological training in French children with SLI: Perspectives on voicing identification, discrimination and categorical perception. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33, 1805–1818.Google Scholar
Damper, R. I., & Harnad, S. R. (2000). Neural network models of categorical perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 843–867.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–534.Google Scholar
Donald, S. L. (1978). The perception of voicing contrasts in Thai and English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Dufor, O., Serniclaes, W., Sprenger-Charolles, L., & Démonet, J.-F. (2009). Left pre-motor cortex and allophonic speech perception in dyslexia: A PET study. NeuroImage, 46, 241–248.Google Scholar
Eilers, R., Gavin, W., & Wilson, W. (1979). Linguistic experience and phonetic perception in infancy: A cross-linguistic study. Child Development, 50, 14–18.Google Scholar
Eimas, P. D. (1975). Speech perception in early infancy. In Cohen, L. & Salapatek, P. (Eds.), Infant perception: Vol. 2. From sensation to cognition (pp. 193–231). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, W. (1982). Percept-percept coupling. Perception, 11, 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Eefting, W. (1986). Linguistic and developmental effects on the production and perception of stop consonants. Phonetica, 43, 155–171.Google Scholar
Golestani, N., & Zatorre, R. J. (2004). Learning new sounds of speech: reallocation of neural substrates. NeuroImage, 21, 494–506.Google Scholar
Holt, L. L., Lotto, A. J., & Diehl, R. L. (2004). Auditory discontinuities interact with categorization: Implications for speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116, 1763–1773.Google Scholar
Hoonhorst, I., Colin, C., Markessis, E., Radeau, M., Deltenre, P., & Serniclaes, W. (2009). French native speakers in the making: From language-general to language-specific voicing boundaries. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104, 353–366.Google Scholar
Hoonhorst, I., Medina, V., Colin, C., Markessis, E., Radeau, M., Deltenre, P., et al. (2010). The development of categorical perception: Comparisons between voicing, colors and facial expressions. Speech Communication, 53, 417–430.Google Scholar
Hoonhorst, I., Serniclaes, W., Collet, G., Colin, C., Markessis, E., Radeau, M., et al. (2009). N1b and Na subcomponents of the N100 long latency auditory evoked-potential: Neurophysiological correlates of voicing in French-speaking subjects. Clinical Neurophysiology, 120, 897–903.Google Scholar
Horev, N., Most, T., & Pratt, H. (2007). Categorical perception of speech (VOT) and analogous non speech (FOT) signals: Behavioral and electrophysiological correlates. Ear and Hearing, 28, 111–128.Google Scholar
Jamieson, D. G., & Morosan, D. E. (1986). Training nonnative speech contrasts in adults: Acquisition of the English /delta/–/theta/ contrast by francophones. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 205–215.Google Scholar
Klatt, D. H. (1980). Software for a cascade/parallel formant synthesizer. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 971–995.Google Scholar
Kraus, N., McGee, T., Carrell, T., King, C., Tremblay, K., & Nicol, T. (1995). Central auditory system plasticity associated with speech discrimination training. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 25–32.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., & Miller, J. D. (1975). Speech perception by the chinchilla: Voiced–voiceless distinction in alveolar plosive consonants. Science, 190, 69–72.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., & Miller, J. D. (1978). Speech perception by the chinchilla: Identification functions for synthetic VOT stimuli. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 63, 905–917.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lasky, R. E., Syrdal-Lasky, A., & Klein, R. E. (1975). VOT discrimination by four to six and a half month old infants from Spanish environment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20, 215–225.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. M., Harris, K. S., Hoffman, K. S., & Griffith, B. C. (1957). The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 358–368.Google Scholar
Lisker, L., & Abramson, A. S. (1964). A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustical measurements. Word, 20, 384–422.Google Scholar
Lisker, L., & Abramson, A. S. (1967). Some effects of context on voice onset time in English stops. Language and Speech, 10, 1–28.Google Scholar
Lisker, L., & Abramson, A. S. (1970). The voicing dimension: Some experiments in comparative phonetics. In Hala, B., Romporti, M., & Jonota, P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 563–567). Ismaning, Germany: Hueber.Google Scholar
Maassen, B., Groenen, P., Crul, T., Assman-Hulsmans, C., & Gabreëls, F. (2001). Identification and discrimination of voicing and place of articulation in developmental dyslexia. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 15, 319–339.Google Scholar
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user's guide. London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Manis, F., & Keating, P. (2004). Speech perception in dyslexic children with and without language impairments. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 103, 30–47.Google Scholar
McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1983). Generalized linear models. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Medina, V., Hoonhorst, I., Bogliotti, C., & Serniclaes, W. (2010). Development of voicing perception in French: Comparing adults, adolescents and children. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 493–503.Google Scholar
Nearey, T. M. (1990). The segment as a unit of speech perception. Journal of Phonetics, 18, 347–373.Google Scholar
Noordenbos, M. W., Segers, E., Serniclaes, W., Mitterer, H., & Verhoeven, L. (2012). Neural evidence of allophonic perception in children at risk for dyslexia. Neuropsychologia, 50, 2010–2017.Google Scholar
Pisoni, D. B. (1977). Identification and discrimination of the relative onset time of two components tones: Implications for voicing perception in stops. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61, 1352–1361.Google Scholar
Pisoni, D. B., Aslin, R. N., Perey, A. J., & Hennesy, B. L. (1982). Some effects of laboratory training on identification and discrimination of voicing contrasts in stop consonants. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 8, 297–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pollack, S., & Pisoni, D. (1971). On the comparison between identification and discrimination tests in speech perception. Psychonomic Science, 24, 299–300.Google Scholar
Serniclaes, W. (1987). Etude expérimentale de la perception du trait de voisement des occlusives du français [Experimental study on the perception of the voicing feature in French stop consonants]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université Libre de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Serniclaes, W. (2011). Features are phonological transforms of natural boundaries. In Clements, G. N. & Ridouane, R. (Eds.), Cognitive, physical and developmental bases of distinctive speech categorie. London: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Serniclaes, W., Sprenger-Charolles, L., Carré, R., & Démonet, J. F. (2001). Perceptual categorization of speech sounds in dyslexics. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 384–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serniclaes, W., Van Heghe, S., Mousty, P., Carré, R., & Sprenger-Charolles, L. (2004). Allophonic mode of speech perception in dyslexia. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87, 336–361.Google Scholar
Simon, C., & Fourcin, A. J. (1978). Cross-language study of speech-pattern learning. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 63, 925–935.Google Scholar
Sinnott, J. S., & Gilmore, C. S. (2004). Perception of place-of-articulation information in natural speech by monkeys versus humans. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 1341–1350.Google Scholar
Stevens, K. N., & Klatt, D. H. (1974). Role of formant transitions in the voiced–voiceless distinction for stops. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 55, 653–659.Google Scholar
Strange, W. (1972). The effects of training on the perception of synthetic speech sound: Voice onset time. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Strange, W. (1992). Learning non-native phoneme contrasts: Interaction among subject, stimulus and task variables. In Tohkura, Y., Vatikiotis-Bateson, E., & Sagisaka, Y. (Eds.), Speech perception, production and linguistic structure (pp. 197–219). Tokyo: Ohmsha.Google Scholar
Strange, W., & Dittman, S. (1984). Effects of discrimination training on the perception of /r–l/ by Japanese adults learning English. Perception & Psychophysics, 36, 131–145.Google Scholar
Streeter, L. A. (1976). Language perception of 2 months old infants show effects of both innate mechanisms and experience. Nature, 259, 39–41.Google Scholar
Tremblay, K., Kraus, N., & McGee, T. (1998). The time-course of auditory perceptual learning: Neurophysiological changes during speech–sound training. NeuroReport, 9, 3556–3560.Google Scholar
Tremblay, K., Kraus, N., McGee, T., Ponton, C., & Otis, B. (2001). Central auditory plasticity: Changes in the N1–P2 complex after speech–sound training. Ear and Hearing, 22, 79–90.Google Scholar
Vinegard, M. D. (1972). A direct magnitude scaling method to investigate categorical vs. continuous modes of speech perception. Language and Speech, 15, 114–121.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., & Logan, J. S. (1985). Cross-language evidence for three factors in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 37, 35–44.Google Scholar
Williams, L. (1977). The voicing contrast in Spanish. Journal of Phonetics, 5, 169–184.Google Scholar
Wood, C. C. (1976). Discriminability, response bias, and phoneme categories in discrimination of voice onset time. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 60, 1381–1389.Google Scholar
Yeni-Komshian, G. H., Caramazza, A., & Preston, M. S. (1977). A study of voicing in Lebanese Arabic. Journal of Phonetics, 5, 35–48.Google Scholar