Abstract
As with all sounds which are presented to the ear, speech sounds are subject to processing by the auditory system. Thus, whatever their importance for the listener, whatever the message conveyed, and however the listener may use linguistic knowledge, context, or other non-acoustic cues to assist in decoding the message from a speaker, the speech sounds which are presented to the listener’s ear are subject to the same “obligatory processing” as are nonspeech sounds. In some situations, we might expect that such obligatory processing would result in the diminution of the perceptual salience of an acoustic cue—for example, as a consequence of masking between two portions of a signal. In other circumstances, we might expect that the auditory system would enhance the perceptual salience of an acoustic cue—for example, as a consequence of spectral-temporal integration. Of course the extent to which both perceptual factors and higher-order variables influence the responses which are actually observed in an experiment will reflect the demands of the particular task which is set for the listener (cf., the paper by MacMillan, Braida, Goldberg, and Khazatsky, in this volume, for further discussion of this point).
The research reported here was supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Health and Welfare Canada, and the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research. I am grateful to Fred Wightman and Terry Dolan for their hospitality while I was a Visiting Fellow at the Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, and to Peter Assman, Meg Cheesman, Vince Dilollo, Bias Espinoza-Varas, Tom Johnson, Linda McEvoy, Terry Nearey, Curtis Ponton, Mike Procter, Anton Rozsypal, and Susan Rvachew for their advice and assistance at various stages of the project. Special thanks are due to Elzbieta Slawinska with whom much of this work was undertaken.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Dorman, M., Cutting, J., and Raphael, L. (1975). Perception of temporal order in vowel sequences with and without formant transitions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 104, 121–129.
Eimas, P.D. and Miller, J.L. (1980). Contextual effects in infant speech perception. Science, 209, 1140–1141.
Hillenbrand, J. (1984). Perception of sine-wave analogs of voice onset time stimuli. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 75, 231–240.
Hirsh, I.J. (1959). Auditory perception of temporal order. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 75, 231–240.
Holmes, J.N., Mattingly, I., and Shearme, J. (1964). Speech synthesis by rule.. Language and Speech, 7, 127–143.
Howell, P. and Rosen, S. (1983). Natural auditory sensitivities as universal determiners of phonemic contrasts. Linguistics, 21, 205–235.
Jamieson, D.G., Johson, T., and Rvachew, S. (1986). A role for intra-speech masking in “rate-normalization” on a stop-semivowel continuum. Alberta Conference on Language, Banff.
Jamieson, D.G. and Slawinska, E.B. (1983). Sensitivity to rate-of-change of frequency transition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Suppl. 1 74, S67.
Jamieson, D.G. and Slawinska, E.B. (1984). The discriminability of transition duration: Effects of the amplitude and duration of following steady state. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Suppl. 1 76, S29.
Jusczyk, P., Pisoni, D., Walley, A., and Murray, J. (1980). Discrimination of relative onset time of two-component tones by infants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 262–270.
Liberman, A., Cooper, F., Shankweiler, D., and Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 74, 431–461.
Liberman, A.M., Ingemann, F., Lisker, L., Delattre, P., and Cooper, F. (1959). Minimal rules for synthesizing speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 31, 1490–1499.
Lisker, L. and Abramson, A.S. (1970). The voicing dimension: Some experiments in comparative phonetics. Proceedings of the sixth international congress of phonetic sciences. Prague: Academia, 563–567.
Luce, R.D. (1963). Discrimination. In: R. Luce and E. Galanter (Eds*), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Willey: New York.
Miller, J.L. and Liberman, A.M. (1979). Some effects of later-occurring information on the perception of stop consonant and semivowel. Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 457–465.
Morse, P. (1972). The discrimination of speech and nonspeech in early infancy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 14, 477.
Nabelek, A. and Hirsh, J.I. (1969). On the discrimination of frequency transitions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 45, 1510–1519.
Pastore, R. (1981). Possible psychoacoustic factors in speech perception. In: P. Eimas and J. Miller (Eds.), Perspectives on the Study of Speech, Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, N.J.
Pastore, R.E., Harris, L.B., and Kaplan, J.K. (1981). Temporal order identification: Some parameter dependencies. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 71, 430–436.
Pisoni, D. (1977). Identification and discrimination of the relative onset time of two component tones. Implications for voicing perception in stops. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61, 1352–1361.
Port, R. (1981). Linguistic timing factors in combination. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 69, 262–274.
Potter, R, Kopp, G., and Kopp, H. (1966). Visible Speech. New York: Dover Publications.
Remez, R., Rubin, P., Pisoni, D., and Carell, T. (1981). Speech perception without traditional speech cues. Science, 212, 947–950.
Robinson, D. and Dadson, R. (1956). A re-determination of the equal-loudness relation for pure tones. British Journal of Applied Physics, 7, 166–181.
Rosen, S. and Howell, P. (1986). Auditory, articulatory and learning factors in categorical perception. In: S. Harnad (Ed.). Categorical perception, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (in press).
Schouten, M.E.H. (1980). The case against a speech mode of perception. Acta Psychologica, 44, 71–98.
Shannon, C. and Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication, Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
Stevens, K. (1981). Constraints imposed by the auditory system on the properties used to classify speech sounds: Data from phonology, acoustics and psychoacoustics. In: T. Myers, J. Laver, and J. Anderson (Eds.), The Cognitive Representation of Speech. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Stevens, K.N. (1984). Evidence for the role of acoustic boundaries in the perception of speech sounds. Speech Communication Group: Working Papers Volume IV, Cambridge, M.A.: Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT.
Strange, W., Jenkins, J., and Johnson, T. (1983). Dynamic specification of coarticulated vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 74, 695–705.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1987 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jamieson, D.G. (1987). Studies of Possible Psychoacoustic Factors Underlying Speech Perception. In: Schouten, M.E.H. (eds) The Psychophysics of Speech Perception. NATO ASI Series, vol 39. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3629-4_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3629-4_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-8123-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-3629-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive