Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.



Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Original Paper

Editor's Choice - Free Access

Individual Talker and Token Covariation in the Production of Multiple Cues to Stop Voicing

Clayards M.

Author affiliations

Department of Linguistics, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

Corresponding Author

Meghan Clayards

Department of Linguistics, McGill University

School of Communication Sciences and Disorders

2001 McGill College, 8th Floor, Montreal, QC H3A 1G1

(Canada), E-Mail meghan.clayards@mcgill.ca

Related Articles for ""

Phonetica 2018;75:1-23

Do you have an account?

Login Information





Contact Information












By signing up for MyKarger you will automatically participate in our year-End raffle.
If you Then Do Not wish To participate, please uncheck the following box.

Yes, I wish To participate In the year-End raffle And Get the chance To win some Of our most interesting books, And other attractive prizes.


I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



Abstract

Background/Aims: Previous research found that individual talkers have consistent differences in the production of segments impacting the perception of their speech by others. Speakers also produce multiple acoustic-phonetic cues to phonological contrasts. Less is known about how multiple cues covary within a phonetic category and across talkers. We examined differences in individual talkers across cues and whether token-by-token variability is a result of intrinsic factors or speaking style by examining within-category correlations. Methods: We examined correlations for 3 cues (voice onset time, VOT, talker-relative onset fundamental frequency, f0, and talker-relative following vowel duration) to word-initial labial stop voicing in English. Results: VOT for /b/ and /p/ productions and onset f0 for /b/ productions varied significantly by talker. Token-by-token within-category variation was largely limited to speaking rate effects. VOT and f0 were negatively correlated within category for /b/ productions after controlling for speaking rate and talker mean f0, but in the opposite direction expected for an intrinsic effect. Within-category talker means were correlated across VOT and vowel duration for /p/ productions. Some talkers produced more prototypical values than others, indicating systematic talker differences. Conclusion: Relationships between cues are mediated more by categories and talkers than by intrinsic physiological relationships.Talker differences reflect systematic speaking style differences.

© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel


References

  1. Allen JS, Miller JL, DeSteno D (2003): Individual talker differences in voice-onset-time. J Acoust Soc Am 113:544-522.
  2. Baayen HR (2009): LanguageR. R package. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=language R.
  3. Baese-Berk M, Goldrick M (2009): Mechanisms of interaction in speech production. Lang Cogn Process 24:527-554.
  4. Bailey PJ, Summerfield Q (1980): Information in speech: observations on the perception of [s]-stop clusters. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 6:536-563.
  5. Bang H-Y, Sonderegger M, Kang Y, Clayards M, Yoon T-J (2015): The effect of word frequency on the time-course of tonogenesis in Seoul Korean. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow.
  6. Barr DJ, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily HJ (2013): Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. J Mem Lang 68:255-278.
  7. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014): lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
  8. Bertelson P, Vroomen J, de Gelder B (2003): Visual recalibration of auditory speech identification: a McGurk aftereffect. Psychol Sci 14:592-597.
  9. Boersma P, Weenink D (2011): Praat: doing phonetics by computer (version 4.6.09). www.praat.org.
  10. Boucher VJ (2002): Timing relations in speech and the identification of voice-onset times: a stable perceptual boundary for voicing categories across speaking rates. Percept Psychophys 64:121-130.
  11. Buzz E, Jaeger F, Tanenhaus MK (2014): Contextual confusability leads to targeted hyperarticulation. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Quebec City.
  12. Chodroff E, Godfrey J, Khudanpur S, Wilson C (2015): Structured variability in acoustic realization: a corpus study of voice onset time in American English stops. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow.
  13. Clayards M (2008): The Ideal Listener: Making Optimal Use Of Acoustic Cues For Speech Perception; PhD thesis, University of Rochester.
  14. Clayards M, Tanenhaus MK, Aslin RN, Jacobs RA (2008): Perception of speech reflects optimal use of probabilistic speech cues. Cognition 108:804-809.
  15. Cole J, Kim H, Choi H, Hasegawa-Johnson M (2007): Prosodic effects on acoustic cues to stop voicing and place of articulation: evidence from radio news speech. J Phonet 35:180-209.
    External Resources
  16. Dmitrieva O, Llanos F, Shultz AA, Francis AL (2015): Phonological status, not voice onset time, determines the acoustic realization of onset f0 as a secondary voicing cue in Spanish and English. J Phonet 49:77-95.
    External Resources
  17. Eisner F, McQueen JM (2005): The specificity of perceptual learning in speech processing. Percept Psychophys 67:224-238.
  18. Ferguson SH (2004): Talker differences in clear and conversational speech: vowel intelligibility for normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 116:2365-2373.
  19. Fox NP, Reilly M, Blumstein SE (2015): Phonological neighborhood competition affects spoken word production irrespective of sentential context. J Mem Lang 83:97-117.
  20. Goggin JP, Thompson CP, Strube G, Simental LR (1991): The role of language familiarity in voice identification. Mem Cogn 19:448-458.
  21. Goldinger S, Summers W (1989): Lexical neighborhoods in speech production: a first report. Research on Speech Perception Progress Report. Psychology Department, Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University, vol 15, pp 331-342.
  22. Green DM, Swets JA (1966): Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. New York, Wiley.
  23. Hazan V, Baker R, Lee WS, Zee E (2011): Is consonant perception linked to within-category dispersion or acrosscategory distance. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Hong Kong, pp 839-842.
  24. Hazan V, Markham D. (2004): Acoustic-phonetic correlates of talker intelligibility for adults and children. J Acoust Soc Am 116:3108-3118.
  25. Holt L, Lotto A, Kluender K (2001): Influence of fundamental frequency on stop-consonant voicing perception: a case of learned covariation or auditory enhancement? J Acoust Soc Am 109:764-774.
  26. Hombert JM, Ohala JJ, Ewan WG (1979): Phonetic explanations for the development of tones. Language 55:37-58.
    External Resources
  27. Hoole P, Honda K, Murano E, Fuchs S, Pape D (2004): Cricothyroid activity in consonant voicing and vowel intrinsic pitch. Proceedings of the Conference on Voice Physiology and Biomechanics, Marseille.
  28. Hoole P, Honda K (2011): Automaticity vs feature-enhancement in the control of segmental F0; in Clements GN, Ridouane R (eds): Where Do Phonological Features Come from: Cognitive, Physical and Developmental Bases of Distinctive Speech Categories. Amsterdam, Benjamins Publishing Company, pp 131-171.
    External Resources
  29. House AS, Fairbanks G (1953): The influence of consonant environment upon the secondary acoustical characteristics of vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 25:105-113.
    External Resources
  30. Johnson K, Ladefoged P, Lindau M (1993): Individual differences in vowel production. J Acoust Soc Am 94:701-714.
  31. Kessinger RH, Blumstein SE (1997): Effects of speaking rate on voice-onset time in Thai, French and English. J Phonet 25:143-168.
    External Resources
  32. Kessinger RH, Blumstein SE (1998): Effects of speaking rate on voice-onset time and vowel production: some implications for perception studies. J Phonet 26:117-128.
    External Resources
  33. Kingston J, Diehl RL (1994): Phonetic knowledge. Language 70:419-454.
    External Resources
  34. Kingston J, Diehl RL, Kirk CJ, Castleman WA (2008): On the internal perceptual structure of distinctive features: the [voice] contrast. J Phonet 36:28-54.
  35. Kirby J (2010): Cue Selection and Category Restructuring in Sound Change; PhD thesis, University of Chicago.
  36. Kirby J (2013): The role of probabilistic enhancement in phonologization; in Yu A (ed): Origins of Sound Patterns: Approaches to Phonologization. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp 228-246.
    External Resources
  37. Kirby JP, Ladd DR (2015): Stop voicing and f0 perturbations: evidence from French and Italian. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow.
  38. Kirby JP, Ladd DR (2016): Effects of obstruent voicing on vowel F0: evidence from “true voicing” languages. J Acoust Soc Am 140:2400-2411.
  39. Kliegl R, Wei P, Dambacher M, Yan M, Zhou X (2011): Experimental effects and individual differences in linear mixed models: estimating the relationship between spatial, object, and attraction effects in visual attention. Front Psychol 1:238-238.
  40. Kohler KJ (1979): Dimensions in the perception of fortis and lenis plosives. Phonetica 36:332-343.
  41. Krause JC, Braida LD (2009): Evaluating the role of spectral and envelope characteristics in the intelligibility advantage of clear speech. J Acoust Soc Am 125:3346-3357.
  42. Lehiste I, Peterson GE (1961): Some basic considerations in the analysis of intonation. J Acoust Soc Am 33:419-425.
    External Resources
  43. Lindblom B, Guion S, Hura S, Moon S-J, Willerman R (1995): Is sound change adaptive? Riv Linguist 7:5-36.
  44. Lisker L (1986): ‘‘Voicing'' in English: a catalogue of acoustic features signaling /b/ versus /p/ in trochees. Lang Speech 29:3-11.
  45. Lisker L, Abrahmson AS (1964): Cross-language study of voicing in initial stops. Word 20:384-422.
    External Resources
  46. Lisker L, Abrahmson AS (1967): Some effect of context on voice onset time in English stops. Lang Speech 10:1-28.
  47. Mack M (1982): Voicing-dependent vowel duration in English and French: monolingual and bilingual production. J Acoust Soc Am 71:173-178.
    External Resources
  48. Mann VA, Repp BH (1980): Influence of vocalic context on perception of the /sh/-/s/ distinction. Percept Psychophys 28:213-228.
  49. Matuschek H, Bates D, Kliegl R, Vasishth S, Baayen H (2015): Balancing type I error and power in linear mixed models. http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.01864.
  50. McMurray B, Clayards MA, Tanenhaus MK, Aslin RN (2008): Tracking the time course of phonetic cue integration during spoken word recognition. Psychon Bull Rev 15:1064-1071.
  51. McMurray B, Jongman A (2011): What information is necessary for speech categorization? Harnessing variability in the speech signal by integrating cues computed relative to expectations. Psychol Rev 118:219.
  52. Miller JL, Green KP, Reeves A (1986): Speaking rate and segments: a look at the relation between speech production and speech perception for the voicing contrast. Phonetica 43:106-115.
    External Resources
  53. Nearey T (1997): Speech perception as pattern recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 101:3241-3254.
  54. Nearey T, Hogan JT (1986): Phonological contrast in experimental phonetics: relating distributions of production data to perceptual categorization curves; in Ohala JJ, Jaeger JJ (eds): Experimental Phonology. Orlando, Academic Press, pp 121-162.
  55. Newman RS, Clouse SA, Burnham JL (2001): The perceptual consequences of within-talker variability in fricative production. J Acoust Soc Am 109:1181-1196.
  56. Noiray A, Iskarous K, Whalen DH (2014): Variability in English vowels is comparable in articulation and acoustics. Lab Phonol 5:271-288.
  57. Norris D, McQueen JM, Cutler A (2003): Perceptual learning in speech. Cogn Psychol 47:204-238.
  58. Nygaard LC, Pisoni DB (1998): Talker-specific learning in speech perception. Percept Psychophys 60:355-376.
  59. Ohde RN (1984): Fundamental frequency as an acoustic correlate of stop consonant voicing. J Acoust Soc Am 75:224.
  60. Port RF (1981): Linguistic timing factors in combination. J Acoust Soc Am 69:262-274.
  61. Port RF, Dalby J (1982): Consonant/vowel ratio as a cue for voicing in English. Percept Psychophys 32:141-152.
  62. Raphael LJ (2005): Acoustic cues to the perception of segmental phonemes; in Pisoni D, Remez R (eds):The Handbook of Speech Perception. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp 182-206.
    External Resources
  63. R Core Team (2016): R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
  64. Repp BH (1982): Phonetic trading relations and context effects: new experimental evidence for a speech mode of perception. Psychol Bull 92:81-110.
  65. Scobbie JM (2006): Flexibility in the face of incompatible English VOT systems; in Goldstein L, Whalen DH, Best CT (eds): Laboratory Phonology 8: Varieties of Phonological Competence. Phonology and Phonetics 4-2. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, pp 367-392.
  66. Shultz AA, Francis AL, Llanos F (2012): Differential cue weighting in perception and production of consonant voicing. J Acoust Soc Am 132:EL95-EL101.
  67. Slis IH, Cohen A (1969): On the complex regulating the voiced-voiceless distinction. Lang Speech 12:80-102.
  68. Smiljanić R, Bradlow AR (2009): Speaking and hearing clearly: talker and listener factors in speaking style changes. Linguist Lang Compass 3:236-264.
  69. Sonderegger M (2015): Trajectories of voice onset time in spontaneous speech on reality TV. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow.
  70. Sussman HM, Fruchter D, Hilbert J, Sirosh J (1998): Linear correlates in the speech signal: the orderly output constraint. Behav Brain Sci 21:241-259.
    External Resources
  71. Theodore RM, Miller JL (2010): Characteristics of listener sensitivity to talker-specific phonetic detail. J Acoust Soc Am 128:2090-2099.
  72. Theodore RM, Miller JL, DeSteno D (2009): Individual talker differences in voice-onset-time: contextual influences. J Acoust Soc Am 125:3974-3982.
  73. Theodore RM, Myers EB, Lomibao JA (2015): Talker-specific influences on phonetic category structure. J Acoust Soc Am 138:1068-1078.
  74. Toscano JC, McMurray B (2010): Cue integration with categories: weighting acoustic cues in speech using unsupervised learning and distributional statistics. Cogn Sci 34:434-464.
  75. Toscano JC, McMurray B (2012): Cue-integration and context effects in speech: evidence against speaking-rate normalization. Attent Percept Psychophys 74:1284-1301.
  76. Umeda N (1981): Influence of segmental factors on fundamental frequency in fluent speech. J Acoust Soc Am 70:350-355.
    External Resources
  77. Wang W, Fillmore C (1961): Intrinsic cues and consonant perception. J Speech Hear Res 4:130-136.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: July 29, 2015
Accepted: July 30, 2016
Published online: June 09, 2017
Issue release date: Published online first

Number of Print Pages: 23
Number of Figures: 5
Number of Tables: 7

ISSN: 0031-8388 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0321 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/PHO


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.