Perceptual Training: A Literature Review

  • Shu-chen OuEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Linguistics book series (SBIL)


This chapter provides a review of the perceptual training literature and presents the goals of the current research. We begin with describing in detail the methodology of perceptual training and its basic design and review several studies that apply this technique to improve learners’ perception of L2 segmental and, particularly, suprasegmental contrasts. As studies differ from one another in methodological aspects such as the task used to assess participants’ performance and the variability of the stimuli, some factors that can possibly impact the outcomes and efficacy of a training intervention are identified and discussed. Next, we summarize the findings from previous research on lexical stress perception and then touch on the issue of central interest in this book—the difficulty with perceiving English word stress patterns in rising intonation on the part of Mandarin-speaking learners of English as a foreign language. Finally, we outline a perceptual training program that aimed to help the learners overcome the difficulty and explain the rationale for its design.


  1. Ainsworth, W.A. 1972. Duration as a cue in the recognition of synthetic vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 51 (2B): 648–651.Google Scholar
  2. Akahane-Yamada, R., E. McDermott, T. Adachi, H. Kawahara, and J.S. Pruitt. 1998. Computer-based second language production training by using spectrographic representation and HMM-based speech recognition scores. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing ed. R. H. Mannell and J. Robert-Ribes, 1747–1750. Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  3. Aliaga‐Garcia, C. 2010. Measuring perceptual cue weighting after training: A comparison of auditory vs. articulatory training methods. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech, New Sounds 2010, ed. K. Dziubalska‐Kołaczyk, M. Wrembel, and M. Kul, 12–18. Poznan, Poland.Google Scholar
  4. Archibald, J. 1997. The acquisition of English stress by speakers of nonaccentual languages: Lexical storage versus computation of stress. Linguistics 35 (1): 167–181.Google Scholar
  5. Barcroft, J., and M.S. Sommers. 2005. Effects of acoustic variability on second language vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27 (3): 387–414.Google Scholar
  6. Beddor, P.S. 2009. A coarticulatory path to sound change. Language 85: 785–821.Google Scholar
  7. Beddor, P.S., A.W. Coetzee, W. Styler, K.B. McGowan, and J.E. Boland. 2018. The time course of individuals’ perception of coarticulatory information is linked to their production: Implications for sound change. Language 94 (4): 931–968.Google Scholar
  8. Best, C.T. 1995. A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research, ed. W. Strange, 171–204. Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
  9. Best, C.T., and W. Strange. 1992. Effects of phonological and phonetic factors on cross-language perception of approximantsEffects of phonological and phonetic factors on cross-language perception of approximants. Journal of Phonetics 20 (3): 305–330.Google Scholar
  10. Blicher, D.L., R.L. Diehl, and L.B. Cohen. 1990. Effects of syllable duration on the perception of the Mandarin Tone 2/Tone 3 distinction: Evidence of auditory enhancement. Journal of Phonetics 18 (1): 37–49.Google Scholar
  11. Bradlow, A.R., and T. Bent. 2008. Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech. Cognition 106 (2): 707–729.Google Scholar
  12. Bradlow, A.R., D.B. Pisoni, R. Akahane-Yamada, and Y.I. Tohkura. 1997. Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101 (4): 2299–2310.Google Scholar
  13. Carlet, A. (2019). Different high variability procedures for training L2 vowels and consonants. In Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 944–948.Google Scholar
  14. Carlet, A., and J. Cebrian. 2015. Identification vs. discrimination training: Learning effects for trained and untrained sounds. In Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.Google Scholar
  15. Chao, Y.R. 1930. A system of tone letters. Le Maître Phonétique 30: 24–27.Google Scholar
  16. Chen, Y. 2011. How does phonology guide phonetics in segment–f0 interaction? Journal of Phonetics 39 (4): 612–625.Google Scholar
  17. Cheng, C.-C. 1968. English stresses and Chinese tones in Chinese sentences. Phonetica 18 (2): 77–88.Google Scholar
  18. Clarke, C., and P. Luce. 2005. Perceptual adaptation to speaker characteristics: VOT boundaries in stop voicing categorization. In Proceedings of the ISCA Workshop on Plasticity in Speech Perception, 23–26. London, U.K.Google Scholar
  19. Cooper, N., A. Cutler, and R. Wales. 2002. Constraints of lexical stress on lexical access in English: Evidence from native and non-native listeners. Language and Speech 45 (3): 207–228.Google Scholar
  20. Creel, S.C., R.N. Aslin, and M.K. Tanenhaus. 2008. Heeding the voice of experience: The role of talker variation in lexical accessHeeding the voice of experience: The role of talker variation in lexical access. Cognition 106 (2): 633–664.Google Scholar
  21. Cutler, A. 1986. Forbear is a homophone: Lexical prosody does not constrain lexical access. Language and Speech 29 (3): 201–220.Google Scholar
  22. Cutler, A., and D.M. Carter. 1987. The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary. Computer Speech and Language 2 (3–4): 133–142.Google Scholar
  23. Cutler, A., and H.C. Chen. 1997. Lexical tone in Cantonese spoken-word processing. Perception and Psychophysics 59 (2): 165–179.Google Scholar
  24. Cutler, A., and D. Pasveer. 2006. Explaining cross-linguistic differences in effects of lexical stress on spoken-word recognition. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Speech Prosody, ed. Hoffman, Rüdiger, and Mixdorff, Hansjörg, 250–254. Dresden: TUD press.Google Scholar
  25. Cutler, A., N. Sebastián-Gallés, O. Soler-Vilageliu, and B. Van Ooijen. 2000. Constraints of vowels and consonants on lexical selection: Cross-linguistic comparisons. Memory and Cognition 28 (5): 746–755.Google Scholar
  26. Dowd, A., J. Smith, and J. Wolfe. 1998. Learning to pronounce vowel sounds in a foreign language using acoustic measurements of the vocal tract as feedback in real time. Language and Speech 41 (1): 1–20.Google Scholar
  27. Dupoux, E., C. Pallier, N. Sebastian, and J. Mehler. 1997. A destressing “deafness” in French? Journal of Memory and Language 36 (3): 406–421.Google Scholar
  28. Dupoux, E., N. Sebastián-Gallés, E. Navarrete, and S. Peperkamp. 2008. Persistent stress ‘deafness’: The case of French learners of Spanish. Cognition 106 (2): 682–706.Google Scholar
  29. Escudero, P., P. Boersma, A.S. Rauber, and R.A. Bion. 2009. A cross-dialect acoustic description of vowels: Brazilian and European Portuguese. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126 (3): 1379–1393.Google Scholar
  30. Flege, J.E. 1995. Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research, ed. W. Strange, 233–276. Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
  31. Fowler, C.A. 1981. Production and perception of coarticulation among stressed and unstressed vowels. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 24 (1): 127–139.Google Scholar
  32. Fowler, C.A. 1986. An event approach to the study of speech perception from a direct-realist perspective. Journal of Phonetics 14 (1): 3–28.Google Scholar
  33. Fry, D.B. 1955. Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27 (4): 765–768.Google Scholar
  34. Fry, D.B. 1958. Experiments in the perception of stress. Language and Speech 1 (2): 126–152.Google Scholar
  35. Gay, T. 1978. Physiological and acoustic correlates of perceived stress. Language and Speech 21 (4): 347–353.Google Scholar
  36. Goldstein, L., and C.A. Fowler. 2003. Articulatory phonology: A phonology for public language use. In Phonetics and Phonology in Language Comprehension and Production: Differences and Similarities, 159–207.Google Scholar
  37. Goto, H. 1971. Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds “L” and “R”. Neuropsychologia 9 (3): 317–323.Google Scholar
  38. Grosvald, M. 2009. Interspeaker variation in the extent and perception of long-distance vowel-to-vowel coarticulation. Journal of Phonetics 37 (2): 173–188.Google Scholar
  39. Hillenbrand, J.M., M.J. Clark, and R.A. Houde. 2000. Some effects of duration on vowel recognition. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 108 (6): 3013–3022.Google Scholar
  40. Hirata, Y. 2004. Effects of speaking rate on the vowel length distinction in Japanese. Journal of Phonetics 32 (4): 565–589.Google Scholar
  41. Hirata, Y., and K. Tsukada. 2004. The effects of speaking rates and vowel length on formant movements in Japanese. In Proceedings of the 2003 Texas Linguistics Society Conference: Coarticulation in Speech Production and Perception, ed. A. Agwuele, W. Warren, and S. H. Park, 73–85. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
  42. Hirata, Y., E. Whitehurst, and E. Cullings. 2007. Training native English speakers to identify Japanese vowel length contrast with sentences at varied speaking rates. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 121 (6): 3837–3845.Google Scholar
  43. Howie, J.M. 1976. Acoustical Studies of Mandarin Vowels and Tones. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Huensch, A., and A. Tremblay. 2015. Effects of perceptual phonetic training on the perception and production of second language syllable structure. Journal of Phonetics 52: 105–120.Google Scholar
  45. Hung, T.N. 2000. Towards a phonology of Hong Kong English. World English’s 19 (3): 337–356.Google Scholar
  46. Idemaru, K., and S.G. Guion. 2008. Acoustic covariants of length contrast in Japanese stops. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 38 (2): 167–186.Google Scholar
  47. Iverson, P., M. Pinet, and B.G. Evans. 2012. Auditory training for experienced and inexperienced second-language learners: Native French speakers learning English vowels. Applied Psycholinguistics 33 (1): 145–160.Google Scholar
  48. Jamieson, D.G., and D.E. Morosan. 1986. Training non-native speech contrasts in adults: Acquisition of the English /ð/-/θ/ contrast by francophones. Perception and Psychophysics 40 (4): 205–215.Google Scholar
  49. Jamieson, D.G., and D.E. Morosan. 1989. Training new, nonnative speech contrasts: A comparison of the prototype and perceptual fading techniques. Canadian Journal of Psychology 43 (1): 88–96.Google Scholar
  50. Juffs, A. 1990. Tone, syllable structure and interlanguage phonology: Chinese learners’ stress errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 28 (2): 99–118.Google Scholar
  51. Jun, S. A. (1996). Influence of microprosody on macroprosody: A case of phrase initial strengthening. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 92: 97–116.Google Scholar
  52. Kartushina, N., A. Hervais-Adelman, U.H. Frauenfelder, and N. Golestani. 2015. The effect of phonetic production training with visual feedback on the perception and production of foreign speech sounds. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 138 (2): 817–832.Google Scholar
  53. Kochanski, G., and C. Orphanidou. 2008. What marks the beat of speech? The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123 (5): 2780–2791.Google Scholar
  54. Kohler, K.J. 1982. F0 in the production of Lenis and Fortis Plosives. Phonetica 39: 199–218.Google Scholar
  55. Kondo, Y. 1995. Production of Schwa by Japanese speakers of English: A crosslinguistic study of coarticulatory strategies (Doctoral dissertation). UK: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  56. Kraus, N., T. McGee, T.D. Carrell, C. King, K. Tremblay, and T. Nicol. 1995. Central auditory system plasticity associated with speech discrimination training. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 7 (1): 25–32.Google Scholar
  57. Ladd, R., and K.E. Silverman. 1984. Vowel intrinsic pitch in connected speech. Phonetica 41 (1): 31–40.Google Scholar
  58. Law, I.L.G., I. Grenon, C. Sheppard, and J. Archibald. 2019. Which is better: Identification or discrimination training for the acquisition of an English coda contrast. In Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.Google Scholar
  59. Lee, T. 1983. The vowel system in two varieties of Cantonese. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 57: 97–114.Google Scholar
  60. Lehiste, I. 1964. Acoustic characteristics of selected English consonants. International Journal of American Linguistics 30: 10–115.Google Scholar
  61. Liberman, A.M., and I.G. Mattingly. 1985. The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition 21 (1): 1–36.Google Scholar
  62. Liberman, A.M., and D.H. Whalen. 2000. On the relation of speech to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4 (5): 187–196.Google Scholar
  63. Lieberman, P. 1960. Some acoustic correlates of word stress in American English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 32 (4): 451–454.Google Scholar
  64. Lin, M.C. 1965. The pitch indicator and the pitch characteristics of tones in Standard Chinese. Acta Acoustica (China) 2: 8–15.Google Scholar
  65. Linebaugh, G., and T.B. Roche. 2015. Evidence that L2 production training can enhance perception. Journal of Academic Language and Learning 9 (1): A1–A17.Google Scholar
  66. Lively, S.E., J.S. Logan, and D.B. Pisoni. 1993. Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/ II: The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 94 (3): 1242–1255.Google Scholar
  67. Lively, S.E., D.B. Pisoni, R.A. Yamada, Y. Tohkura, and T. Yamada. 1994. Training Japanese listeners to identify English/r/and/l/. III. Long‐term retention of new phonetic categories. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 96 (4): 2076–2087.Google Scholar
  68. Logan, J.S., S.E. Lively, and D.B. Pisoni. 1991. Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /1/: A first report. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 89: 874–886.Google Scholar
  69. McClaskey, C.L., D.B. Pisoni, and T.D. Carrell. 1983. Transfer of training of a new linguistic contrast in voicing. Perception and Psychophysics 34 (4): 323–330.Google Scholar
  70. Mateus, M.H.M., I. Falé, and M. Freitas. 2005. Fonética e fonologia do português (Portuguese Phonetics and Phonology). Lisbon: Universidade Aberta.Google Scholar
  71. MacKain, K.S., C.T. Best, and W. Strange. 1981. Categorical perception of English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics 2 (4): 369–390.Google Scholar
  72. Marks, E.A., D.R. Moates, Z.S. Bond, and V. Stockmal. 2002. Word reconstruction and consonant features in English and Spanish. Linguistics 40: 421–438.Google Scholar
  73. Mitterer, H., and M. Ernestus. 2008. The link between speech perception and production is phonological and abstract: Evidence from the shadowing task. Cognition 109 (1): 168–173.Google Scholar
  74. Miyawaki, K., J.J. Jenkins, W. Strange, A.M. Liberman, R. Verbrugge, and O. Fujimura. 1975. An effect of linguistic experience: The discrimination of [r] and [l] by native speakers of Japanese and English. Perception and Psychophysics 18 (5): 331–340.Google Scholar
  75. Moore, C.B., and A. Jongman. 1997. Speaker normalization in the perception of Mandarin Chinese tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 102: 1864–1877.Google Scholar
  76. Mullennix, J.W., and D.B. Pisoni. 1990. Stimulus variability and processing dependencies in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics 47 (4): 379–390.Google Scholar
  77. Neger, T.M., T. Rietveld, and E. Janse. 2014. Relationship between perceptual learning in speech and statistical learning in younger and older adults. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8: 628.Google Scholar
  78. Nishi, K., and D. Kewley-Port. 2007. Training Japanese listeners to perceive American English vowels: Influence of training sets. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 50 (6): 1496–1509.Google Scholar
  79. Noiray, A., M.A. Cathiard, L. Ménard, and C. Abry. 2011. Test of the movement expansion model: Anticipatory vowel lip protrusion and constriction in French and English speakers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 129 (1): 340–349.Google Scholar
  80. Norris, D., J.M. McQueen, and A. Cutler. 2003. Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology 47 (2): 204–238.Google Scholar
  81. Nespor, M., M. Peña, and J. Mehler. 2003. On the different roles of vowels and consonants in speech processing and language acquisition. Lingue e Linguaggio 2 (2): 203–230.Google Scholar
  82. Nygaard, L.C., and D.B. Pisoni. 1998. Talker-specific learning in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics 60 (3): 355–376.Google Scholar
  83. Ohala, J. 1978. Production of tone In Tone: A Linguistic Survey, ed. V. Fromkin, 5–39. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  84. Oguma, R. 2000. Perception of Japanese long vowels and short vowels by English speaking learners. Japanese-Language Education Around the Globe 10: 43–55.Google Scholar
  85. Ou, S.-C. 2010. Taiwanese EFL learners. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 36 (1): 1–23.Google Scholar
  86. Ou, S.-C. 2016. Perception of English lexical Stress with a marked pitch accent by native speakers of Mandarin. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 14 (2): 1–31.Google Scholar
  87. Ou, S.-C. 2019. The role of lexical stress in spoken English word recognition by listeners of English and Taiwan Mandarin. Language and Linguistics 20 (4): 569–600.Google Scholar
  88. Peperkamp, S., and E. Dupoux. 2002. A typological study of stress “deafness”. Laboratory Phonology 7: 203–240.Google Scholar
  89. Perrachione, T.K., J. Lee, L.Y. Ha, and P.C. Wong. 2011. Learning a novel phonological contrast depends on interactions between individual differences and training paradigm design. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130 (1): 461–472.Google Scholar
  90. Pisoni, D.B. 1971. On the nature of categorical perception of speech sounds (Doctoral thesis). University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  91. Pisoni, D.B. 1973. Auditory and phonetic memory codes in the discrimination of consonants and vowels. Perception and Psychophysics 13 (2): 253–260.Google Scholar
  92. Pisoni, D.B., R.N. Aslin, A.J. Perey, and B.L. Hennessy. 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 (2): 297.Google Scholar
  93. Price, P. (1981). A Cross-linguistic Study of Flaps in Japanese and in American English. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  94. Pruitt, J.S., J.J. Jenkins, and W. Strange. 2006. Training the perception of Hindi dental and retroflex stops by native speakers of American English and Japanese. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119 (3): 1684–1696.Google Scholar
  95. Putri, A.S., H. Ge, A. Hart, V. Yip, and A. Chen. 2019. The effect of explicit training on comprehension of English focus-to-prosody mapping by Indonesian learners of English. In Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 1937–1941.Google Scholar
  96. Rato, A. 2014. Effects of perceptual training on the identification of English vowels by native speakers of European Portuguese. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech, vol. 5, 529–546.Google Scholar
  97. Ryu, N.-Y., and Y. Kang. 2019. Web-based high variability phonetic training on L2 coda perception. In Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 482–486.Google Scholar
  98. Sakai, M., and C. Moorman. 2018. Can perception training improve the production of second language phonemes? A meta-analytic review of 25 years of perception training research. Applied Psycholinguistics 39 (1): 187–224.Google Scholar
  99. Samuel, A.G., and T. Kraljic. 2009. Perceptual learning for speech. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics 71 (6): 1207–1218.Google Scholar
  100. Sheldon, A., and W. Strange. 1982. The acquisition of /r/ and /l/ by Japanese learners of English: Evidence that speech production can precede speech perception. Applied Psycholinguistics 3 (3): 243–261.Google Scholar
  101. Shen, X.S., M. Lin, and J. Yan. 1993. F 0 turning point as an F0 cue to tonal contrast: a case study of Mandarin tones 2 and 3. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 93 (4): 2241–2243.Google Scholar
  102. Shinohara, Y., and P. Iverson. 2018. High variability identification and discrimination training for Japanese speakers learning English /r/–/l. Journal of Phonetics 66: 242–251.Google Scholar
  103. Sluijter, A.M.C. 1995. Phonetic Correlates of Stress and Accent. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
  104. So, C.K. 2005. The effect of L1 prosodic backgrounds of Cantonese and Japanese speakers on the perception of Mandarin tones after training. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117 (4): 2427.Google Scholar
  105. Stevens, K.N., A.M. Libermann, M. Studdert-Kennedy, and S.E.G. Öhman. 1969. Crosslanguage study of vowel perception. Language and Speech 12 (1): 1–23.Google Scholar
  106. Strange, W., and S. Dittmann. 1984. Effects of discrimination training on the perception of /rl/ by Japanese adults learning English. Perception and Psychophysics 36 (2): 131–145.Google Scholar
  107. Tajima, K., A. Rothwell, and K.G. Munhall. 2002. Native and non-native perception of phonemic length contrasts in Japanese: Effect of identification training and exposure. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 112 (5): 2387.Google Scholar
  108. Tseng, C.-Y. 1990. An Acoustic Phonetic Study on Tones in Mandarin Chinese. Taipei, Taiwan: Institute of History and Philology Academia Science.Google Scholar
  109. Van Ooijen, B. 1996. Vowel mutability and lexical selection in English: Evidence from a word reconstruction task. Memory and Cognition 24 (5): 573–583.Google Scholar
  110. Vance, T.J. 1987. An Introduction to Japanese Phonology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  111. Wang, X. 1998. Effects of first language on native Mandarin speakers’ perception of English vowels. In Proceedings of the 14th Northwestern Linguistics Conferences, ed. K. Lee, and M. Oliverie, 7–8.Google Scholar
  112. Wang, X. 2008. Perceptual Training for Learning English Vowels: Perception, Production, and Long-term Retention. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
  113. Wang, X. 2013. Perception of Mandarin tones: The effect of L1 background and training. The Modern Language Journal 97 (1): 144–160.Google Scholar
  114. Wang, Y., M.M. Spence, A. Jongman, and J.A. Sereno. 1999. Training American listeners to perceive Mandarin tones. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106 (6): 3649–3658.Google Scholar
  115. Wayland, R.P., and S.G. Guion. 2004. Training English and Chinese listeners to perceive Thai tones: A preliminary report. Language Learning 54 (4): 681–712.Google Scholar
  116. Whalen, D.H., and A.G. Levitt. 1995. The universality of intrinsic F0 of vowels. Journal of Phonetics 23 (3): 349–366.Google Scholar
  117. Wong, P.C., H.C. Nusbaum, and S.L. Small. 2004. Neural bases of talker normalization. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16 (7): 1173–1184.Google Scholar
  118. Wong, J.W.S. 2013. The effects of perceptual and/or productive training on the perception and production of English vowels /ɪ/ and /iː/ by Cantonese ESL learners. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, ed. F. Bimbot, 2113–2117. Lyon, France.Google Scholar
  119. Xu, Y. 1997. Contextual tonal variations in Mandarin. Journal of Phonetics 25 (1): 61–83.Google Scholar
  120. Yamada, R.A., and Y.I. Tohkura. 1992. The effects of experimental variables on the perception of American English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese listeners. Perception and Psychophysics 52 (4): 376–392.Google Scholar
  121. Yamada, T., R.A. Yamada, and W. Strange. 1995. Perceptual learning of Japanese mora syllables by native speakers of American English: Effects of training stimulus sets and initial states. In Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 322–325.Google Scholar
  122. Yu, A.C. 2016. Vowel-dependent variation in Cantonese /s/ from an individual-difference perspective. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 139 (4): 1672–1690.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Sun Yat-sen UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations