Advertisement

The familiar-melody advantage in auditory perceptual development: Parallels between spoken language acquisition and general auditory perception

  • Sarah C. CreelEmail author
Perceptual/Cognitive Constraints on the Structure of Speech Communication: In Honor of Randy Diehl

Abstract

How do learners build up auditory pattern knowledge? Findings from children’s spoken word learning suggest more robust auditory representations for highly familiar words than for newly learned words. This argues against spoken language learning as a process of simply acquiring a fixed set of speech sound categories, suggesting instead that specific words may be the relevant units. More generally, one might state this as the specific-learning hypothesis—that acquiring sound pattern knowledge involves learning specific patterns, rather than abstract pattern components. To understand the nature of human language knowledge, it is important to determine whether this specific learning reflects processes unique to spoken language learning or instead reflects more general auditory-learning processes. To investigate whether the specific-learning hypothesis extends to auditory pattern learning more generally, the present study tested the perceptual processing of familiar melodies versus carefully matched unfamiliar melodies. Children performed better at both audiovisual mapping (Exp. 1) and same–different auditory discrimination (Exp. 2) when hearing familiar melodies than when hearing unfamiliar melodies. This is consistent with the specific-learning hypothesis and with exemplar-style general-auditory accounts of pattern learning, although alternative explanations are possible.

Keywords

Music cognition Sound recognition Speech perception Spoken word recognition 

Notes

Author note

Data and R code for analysis are available at the following DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/WH3FY.

References

  1. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2014). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.4.01) [Computer program]. Retrieved November 9, 2014, from www.praat.org
  3. Corrigall, K. A., & Trainor, L. J. (2010). Musical enculturation in preschool children: Acquisition of key and harmonic knowledge. Music Perception, 28, 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Creel, S. C. (2014a). Impossible to _gnore: Word-form inconsistency slows preschool children’s word-learning. Language Learning and Development, 10, 68–95.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2013.803871 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Creel, S. C. (2014b). Preschoolers’ flexible use of talker information during word learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 73, 81–98.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Creel, S. C. (2014c). Tipping the scales: Auditory cue weighting changes over development. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 1146–1160.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036057 Google Scholar
  7. Creel, S. C. (2016). Ups and downs in auditory development: Preschoolers’ sensitivity to pitch contour and timbre. Cognitive Science, 14, 373–303.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Creel, S. C., & Jimenez, S. R. (2012). Differences in talker recognition by preschoolers and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 487–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Creel, S. C., & Quam, C. (2015). Apples and oranges: Developmental discontinuities in spoken-language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 713–716.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Creel, S. C., Weng, M., Fu, G., Heyman, G. D., & Lee, K. (2018). Speaking a tone language enhances musical pitch perception in 3–5-year-olds. Developmental Science, 21, e12503. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diehl, R. L., & Walsh, M. A. (1989). An auditory basis for the stimulus-length effect in the perception of stops and glides. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 2154–2164.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.397864 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doherty, M. J. (2004). Children’s difficulty in learning homonyms. Journal of Child Language, 31, 203–214.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500090300583X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dowling, W. J. (1978). Scale and contour: Two components of a theory of memory for melodies. Psychological Review, 85, 341–354.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.4.341 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fennell, C. T., & Werker, J. F. (2003). Early word learners’ ability to access phonetic detail in well-known words. Language and Speech, 46, 245–264.  https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309030460020901 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fragoulis, D., Papaodysseus, C., Exarhos, M., Roussopoulos, G., Panagopoulos, T., & Kamarotos, D. (2006). Automated classification of piano–guitar notes. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 14, 1040–1050.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSA.2005.857571 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldinger, S. D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105, 251–279.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.105.2.251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hay, J. S. F., & Diehl, R. L. (2007). Perception of rhythmic grouping: Testing the iambic/trochaic law. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 113–122.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194458 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Iverson, P., & Krumhansl, C. L. (1993). Isolating the dynamic attributes of musical timbre. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94, 2595–2603.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.407371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kluender, K. R., Diehl, R. L., & Killeen, P. R. (1987). Japanese quail can learn phonetic categories. Science, 237, 1195–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kluender, K. R., Diehl, R. L., & Wright, B. A. (1988). Vowel-length differences before voiced and voiceless consonants: An auditory explanation. Journal of Phonetics, 16, 153–169.Google Scholar
  21. Kuhl, P. K., Williams, K. A., Lacerda, F., Stevens, K. N., & Lindblom, B. (1992). Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science, 255, 606–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lynch, M. P., Eilers, R. E., Oller, D. K., & Urbano, R. C. (1990). Innateness, experience, and music perception. Psychological Science, 1, 272–276.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00213.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. McFadden, D., & Callaway, N. L. (1999). Better discrimination of small changes in commonly encountered than in less commonly encountered auditory stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 543–560.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.2.543 Google Scholar
  25. Pajak, B., Creel, S. C., & Levy, R. (2016). Difficulty in learning similar-sounding words: A developmental stage or a general property of learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 1377–1399.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000247 Google Scholar
  26. R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from www.R-project.org
  27. Stager, C. L., & Werker, J. F. (1997). Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than in word-learning tasks. Nature, 388, 381–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Storkel, H. L., & Maekawa, J. (2005). A comparison of homonym and novel word learning: The role of phonotactic probability and word frequency. Journal of Child Language, 32, 827–853.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000905007099 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Swingley, D., & Aslin, R. N. (2002). Lexical neighborhoods and the word-form representations of 14-month-olds. Psychological Science, 13, 480–484.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00485 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Trainor, L. J., & Trehub, S. E. (1994). Key membership and implied harmony in Western tonal music: Developmental perspectives. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 125–132.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213891 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Trehub, S. E., Bull, D., & Thorpe, L. A. (1984). Infants’ perception of melodies: The role of melodic contour. Child Development, 55, 821–830.Google Scholar
  32. Vongpaisal, T., Trehub, S. E., & Schellenberg, E. G. (2009). Identification of TV tunes by children with cochlear implants. Music Perception, 27, 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Werker, J. F., Fennell, C. T., Corcoran, K. M., & Stager, C. L. (2002). Infants’ ability to learn phonetically similar words: Effects of age and vocabulary size. Infancy, 3, 1–30.  https://doi.org/10.1207/15250000252828226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. (1984). Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 7, 49–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(84)80022-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yeung, H. H., & Werker, J. F. (2009). Learning words’ sounds before learning how words sound: 9-month-olds use distinct objects as cues to categorize speech information. Cognition, 113, 234–243.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cognitive ScienceUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations