Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:48:26.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stimulus variability and perceptual learning of nonnative vowel categories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2011

FRANÇOISE BROSSEAU-LAPRÉ ,
SUSAN RVACHEW ,
MEGHAN CLAYARDS  and
DANIEL DICKSON
FRANÇOISE BROSSEAU-LAPRÉ
Affiliation:
McGill University
SUSAN RVACHEW*
Affiliation:
McGill University
MEGHAN CLAYARDS
Affiliation:
McGill University
DANIEL DICKSON
Affiliation:
McGill University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Susan Rvachew, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, McGill University, 1266 Pine Avenue West, Montréal, QC H3G 1A8, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

English-speakers' learning of a French vowel contrast (/ə/–/ø/) was examined under six different stimulus conditions in which contrastive and noncontrastive stimulus dimensions were varied orthogonally to each other. The distribution of contrastive cues was varied across training conditions to create single prototype, variable far (from the category boundary), and variable close (to the boundary) conditions, each in a single talker or a multiple talker version. The control condition involved identification of gender appropriate grammatical elements. Pre- and posttraining measures of vowel perception and production were obtained from each participant. When assessing pre- to posttraining changes in the slope of the identification functions, statistically significant training effects were observed in the multiple voice far and multiple voice close conditions.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , May 2013 , pp. 419 - 441
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011 

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

AVAAZ Innovations Inc. (1993–2004). Synth Klatt Parameter Editor, Version 1.0 [Computer program]. London, Canada: Author.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2007). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer, Version 5.05 [Computer program]. Retrieved May 2, 2007, from http://www.praat.org/Google Scholar
Bradlow, A. R., Pisoni, D., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Tohkura, Y. (1997). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 2299–2310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradlow, A. R., Pisoni, D. B., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Tohkura, Y. (1999). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: Long-term retention of learning in perception and production. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 977–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callan, D. E., Jones, J. A., Callan, A. M., & Akahane-Yamada, R. (2004). Phonetic perceptual identification by native- and second-language speakers differentially activates brain regions involved with acoustic phonetic processing and those involved with articulatory–auditory/orosensory internal models. NeuroImage, 22, 1182–1194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callan, D. E., Kent, R. D., Guenther, F. H., & Vorperian, H. K. (2000). An auditory-feedback-based neural network model of speech production that is robust to developmental changes in the size and shape of the articulatory system. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 721–738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casale, M. B., & Ashby, G. (2008). A role for the perceptual representation memory system in category learning. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 983–999.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clayards, M., Tanenhaus, M. K., Aslin, R. N., & Jacobs, R. A. (2008). Perception of speech reflects optimal use of probabilistic speech cues. Cognition, 108, 804–809.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flege, J., Bohn, O., & Jang, S. (1997). Effects of experience on non-native speakers' production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 437–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., MacKay, I. R. A., & Meador, D. (1999). Native Italian speakers' perception and production of English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 2973.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Francis, A. L., Baldwin, K., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2000). Effects of training on attention to acoustic cues. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1668–1680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldinger, S. D., Pisoni, D., & Logan, J. S. (1991). On the locus of talker variability effects in recall of spoken word lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 152–162.Google Scholar
Guenther, F. H., & Gjaja, M. N. (1996). The perceptual magnet effect as an emergent property of neural map formation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 1111–1121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iverson, P., Hazan, V., & Bannister, K. (2005). Phonetic training with acoustic cue manipulations: A comparison of methods for teaching English /r/-/l/ to Japanese adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 3267–3278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, D. G., & Morosan, D. E. (1989). Training new, nonnative speech contrasts: A comparison of the prototype and perceptual fading techniques. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 43, 88–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kingston, J. (2003). Learning foreign vowels. Language and Speech, 46, 295–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhl, P. K., Conboy, B. T., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., & Nelson, T. (2008). Phonetic learning as a pathway to language: New data and native language magnet theory expanded (NLM-e). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 363, 979–1000.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambacher, S. G., Martens, W. L., Kakehi, K., & Marasinghe, C. A. (2005). The effects of identification training on the identification and production of American English vowels by native speakers of Japanese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, E. S. (2009). Language experience and consonantal context effects on perceptual assimilation of French vowels by American–English learners of French. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 1138–1152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lively, S. E., Logan, J. S., & Pisoni, D. (1993). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. II: The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94, 1242–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lively, S. E., Pisoni, D. B., Yamada, R. A., Tohkura, Y., & Yamada, T. (1994). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96, 2076–2087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maye, J., Weiss, D. J., & Aslin, R. N. (2008). Statistical phonetic learning in infants: Facilitation and feature generalization. Developmental Science, 11, 122–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McClelland, J. L., Fiez, J. A., & McCandliss, B. D. (2002). Teaching the /r/-/l/ discrimination to Japanese adults: Behavioral and neural aspects. Physiology & Behavior, 77, 657–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMurray, B., Aslin, R. N., & Toscano, J. C. (2009). Statistical learning of phonetic categories: Insights from a computational approach. Developmental Science, 12, 369–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ménard, L., Schwartz, J., & Boë, L. (2002). Auditory normalization of French vowels synthesized by an articulatory model simulating growth from birth to adulthood. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 1892–1905.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morosan, D. E., & Jamieson, D. G. (1989). Evaluation of a technique for training new speech contrasts: Generalization across voices, but not word-position or task. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32, 501–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mullenix, J. W., Pisoni, D., & Martin, C. S. (1989). Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishi, K., & Kewley-Port, D. (2007). Training Japanese listeners to perceive American English vowels: Influence of training sets. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 1496–1509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nygaard, L. C., Sommers, M. S., & Pisoni, D. (1994). Speech perception as a talker-contingent process. Psychological Science, 5, 42–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perkell, J., Guenther, F. H., Lane, H., Matthies, M., Stockmann, E., Tiede, M., et al. (2004). The distinctness of speakers' productions of vowel contrasts is related to their discrimination of the contrasts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116, 2338–2344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pruitt, J. S., Jenkins, J. J., & Strange, W. (2006). Training the perception of Hindi dental and retroflex stops by native speakers of American English and Japanese. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 1684–1696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rost, G. C., & McMurray, B. (2009). Speaker variability augments phonological processing in early word learning. Developmental Science, 12, 339–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rost, G. C., & McMurray, B. (in press). Finding the signal by adding noise: The role of non-contrastive phonetic variability in early word learning. Infancy.Google Scholar
Rvachew, S., & Brosseau-Lapre, F. (2010). Speech perception intervention. In Williams, S. M. L., & McCauley, R. (Ed.), Treatment of speech sound disorders in children. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.Google Scholar
Rvachew, S., & Jamieson, D. G. (1995). Learning new speech contrasts: Evidence from learning a second language and children with speech disorders. In Strange, W. (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience (pp. 411–432). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Salminen, N. H., Tiitinen, H., & May, P. J. C. (2009). Modeling the categorical perception of speech sounds: A step toward biological plausibility. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 304–313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shiller, D. M., Sato, M., Gracco, V. L., & Baum, S. R. (2009). Perceptual recalibration of speech sounds following speech motor learning. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 1103–1113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Traunmüller, H., & Öhrström, N. (2007). Audiovisual perception of openness and lip rounding in front vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 35, 244–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, K., Kraus, N., McGee, T., Ponton, C. W., & Otis, B. (2001). Central auditory plasticity: Changes in the N1–P2 complex after speech sound training. Ear and Hearing, 22, 79–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tremblay, K., Nina, K., Carrell, T. D., & McGee, T. (1997). Central auditory system plasticity: generalization to novel stimuli following listening training. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 3762–3773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsukada, K., Birdsong, D., Bialystok, E., Mack, M., Sung, H., & Flege, J. (2005). A developmental study of English vowel production and perception by native Korean adults and children. Journal of Phonetics, 33, 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werker, J. F., Gilbert, J. H., Humphrey, K., & Tees, R. C. (1981). Developmental aspects of cross-language speech perception. Child Development, 52, 349–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, P. C. M., & Perrachione, T. K. (2007). Learning pitch patterns in lexical tone identification by native English-speaking adults. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 565–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeithamova, D., Maddox, W. T., & Schnyer, D. M. (2008). Dissociable prototype learning systems: Evidence from brain imaging and behavior. Journal of Neuroscience, 28, 13194–13201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, Y., Kuhl, P. K., Imada, T., Iverson, P., Pruitt, J., Stevens, E. B., et al. (2009). Neural signatures of phonetic learning in adulthood: A magnetoencephalography study. NeuroImage, 46, 226–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhao, Y. (2009). Statistical inference in the learning of novel phonetic categories. Paper presented at the Linguistics Society of Americal Annual Meeting, San Francisco.Google Scholar