a study on perceptual compensation for / /-fronting in american english
DESCRIPTION
a study on perceptual compensation for / /-fronting in American English. Reiko Kataoka February 14, 2009 BLS 35. PERCEPTUAL COMPENSATION FOR COARTICULATION. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: a study on perceptual compensation for / /-fronting in American English](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56815037550346895dbe32db/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
A STUDY ON PERCEPTUAL COMPENSATION FOR
/ /-FRONTING IN AMERICAN ENGLISH
Reiko KataokaFebruary 14, 2009
BLS 35
![Page 2: a study on perceptual compensation for / /-fronting in American English](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56815037550346895dbe32db/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
PERCEPTUAL COMPENSATION FOR COARTICULATION
Perceptual compensation for coarticulation: an effect of context-moderated perception that compensate for coarticulatory influence of the speech sounds.
Perceptual correction (Ohala 1981: 182)
Failure to compensate , erroneous compensation misperception
Why care perceptual compensation? To understand how humans achieve faithful sound
transmission To understand how misperception could occur sound
change
![Page 3: a study on perceptual compensation for / /-fronting in American English](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56815037550346895dbe32db/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
EXAMPLES OF PERCEPTUAL COMPENSATION
F1 of precursor influences [i]/[e] decision (Ladefoged & Broadbent, 1957)
Speech rate influences [i]/[u] decision in [w_w] context (Lindblom & Studdert-Kennedy, 1967)
Influence by: adjacent segment: Mann & Repp, 1980; Lotto &
Kluender, 1998; Beddor & Krakow,1999; Harrington et al., 2008
Lexical status: Ganong, 1980; Elman & McClelland, 1988
Precursor sentence: Ohala & Shriberg, 1990
![Page 4: a study on perceptual compensation for / /-fronting in American English](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56815037550346895dbe32db/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
PREVIOUS STUDY ON ALVEOLAR / /-FRONTING(OHALA & FEDER, 1994)
Stimuli: [i] – [u] continua (with following [də] or [bə])
Factors: Alveolar, Bilabial Acoustic or Noise
Findings:1) Listeners compensated forcoarticulatory frongting inalveolar context.2) Listeners did so both inAcoustic and Noisecontexts
VbəVdə
![Page 5: a study on perceptual compensation for / /-fronting in American English](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56815037550346895dbe32db/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
HYPOTHESIS
H1: The /i-u/ boundary would be more leftward for alveolar context than for bilabial context.
H2: The similar boundary shift would occur both in ‘Acoustic’ and ‘Noise’ conditions.
H3: The boundary discrepancy would become progressively greater as speech rate increase from slow to medium to fast.
Exploration: H4: Whether vowel perception is influenced by presence
or absence of precursor sentence. (acoustic mode vs. speech mode?)
H5: Whether Reaction Time (RT) for /u/-response is influenced by context or not. (perceptual contrast?)
![Page 6: a study on perceptual compensation for / /-fronting in American English](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56815037550346895dbe32db/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
STIMULI
10 equal-step /i/ - /u/ continuum (Praat)Separate a source from natural utterance.Apply a filter (5 peak fequencies and bandwiths)Duration = 100 msc
Formant (Hz) bandwidth (Hz)F5 4500 250F4 3500 200F3 2319 150F2 1200 100F1 375 50
![Page 7: a study on perceptual compensation for / /-fronting in American English](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56815037550346895dbe32db/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
STIMULI
10 equal-step /i/ - /u/ continuum (Praat) cont.
Variable F2 and F3 F3 2969 Hz ----------- 2319 Hz (0.18 Bark)
F2 2372 Hz ----------- 1200 Hz (0.5 Bark) Vowel duration: 100 msc (also 80 msc and 120 msc) Amplitude contour first and last 15 ms F0 contour: 130 90 Hz
F3: 2969 2888 2808 2732 2658 2586 2516 2448 2382 2319 (Hz)
F2: 2372 2201 2042 1895 1759 1632 1513 1402 1298 1200 (Hz)
![Page 8: a study on perceptual compensation for / /-fronting in American English](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56815037550346895dbe32db/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
STIMULUS CVC
Add onset and coda to the vowelAlveolar: [dit] – [dut] Alveolar in Noise: [NiN] – [NuN]Bilabial: [bip] – [bup] Bilabial in Noise: [NiN] – [NuN] (Vowel onset to C2 release = 170 msc)
![Page 9: a study on perceptual compensation for / /-fronting in American English](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56815037550346895dbe32db/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
w/o Precursor: Stimulus presented in isolation Task: two-alternative forced-choice between /i/ and /u/ w/Precursor: Stimulus presented after “I guess the word is _____” Trials: 10 tokens x 4 repetition = 40 trials per cell Block: Context – blocked Acoustic vs. Noise – mixed;
Fast, Medium, Slow – blockedListeners: Native speakers of Am-Engl. (n=32: 18F, 14M; 19-49 yrs
old)
ContextConditions Alveolar
‘deet’ /‘doot’
Bilabial ‘beep’ /‘bo
op’w/o
precursor
Acoustic (100) [dVt] [bVp] Noise (100) [NVN] [NVN]
w/ precurso
r
Fast (800-80) [dVt] [bVp] Med. (1000-
100)[dVt] [bVp]
Slow (1200-120)
[dVt] [bVp] H1
H3
H2Q1
Q2: RT
![Page 10: a study on perceptual compensation for / /-fronting in American English](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56815037550346895dbe32db/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
THIS IS HOW THE EXPERIMENT GOES (1)
Acoustic
Noise
Press [1] Press [5] for for ‘deet’ ‘doot’
![Page 11: a study on perceptual compensation for / /-fronting in American English](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56815037550346895dbe32db/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
THIS IS HOW THE EXPERIMENT GOES (2)
Acoustic
Noise
Press [1] Press [5] for for ‘beep’ ‘boop’
![Page 12: a study on perceptual compensation for / /-fronting in American English](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56815037550346895dbe32db/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
THIS IS HOW THE EXPERIMENT GOES (3)
FastMediumSlow
Press [1] Press [5] for for ‘deet’ ‘doot’
![Page 13: a study on perceptual compensation for / /-fronting in American English](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56815037550346895dbe32db/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
RESULTS: NOISE VS. ACOUSTIC * CONTEXT
Percentage of /u/-Response by Context and Condition
Noise Real
AlveolarBilabial
Context
Dot/Lines show Means
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Stimulus Step Number
0
25
50
75
100
/u/-
Res
po
ns
e (
%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Stimulus Step Number
Noise Acustic
/u/-
Resp
onse
(%
)
Stimulus Step Number Stimulus Step Number
![Page 14: a study on perceptual compensation for / /-fronting in American English](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56815037550346895dbe32db/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
RESULTS: NOISE VS. ACOUSTIC * CONTEXT (RT)
Reaction Time for /u/-response
Alveolar
Bilabial
Context
Error Bars show Mean +/- 1.0 SE
Bars show Means
Noise Real
Condition
0
250
500
750
Mea
n R
eact
ion
Tim
e (m
sc)
Effect of Contexts (Paired T-Test)N: [t=-0.69 (31), p=0.499]R: [t=-1.60 (31), p=0.123]
684710
643 694
![Page 15: a study on perceptual compensation for / /-fronting in American English](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56815037550346895dbe32db/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
RESULTS: PRECURSOR * CONTEXT
Percentage of /u/-Response by Condition and Context
Without Precursor With Precursor
Alveolar
Bilabial
Context
Dot/Lines show Means
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Stimulus Step Number
0
25
50
75
100
/u/-
Res
po
ns
e (
%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Stimulus Step Number
t=0.91 (31), p=0.371
t=2.68 (31), p=0.012 *
/u/-
Resp
onse
(%
)
![Page 16: a study on perceptual compensation for / /-fronting in American English](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56815037550346895dbe32db/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
RESULTS: PRECURSOR * CONTEXT (RT)
Reaction Time for /u/-response
AlveolarBilabial
Context
Error Bars show 95.0% Cl of Mean
Bars show Means
Without Precursor With Precursor
Condition
0.00
250.00
500.00
750.00
Mea
n R
eact
ion
Tim
e (m
sc)
643694 695
755
Effect of Contexts (Paired T-Test)Without: [t=-1.6 (31), p=0.120]With: [t=-2.26 (31), p=0.031] *
![Page 17: a study on perceptual compensation for / /-fronting in American English](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56815037550346895dbe32db/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
RESULTS: SPEECH RATE * CONTEXTPercentage of /u/-Response by Context and Condition
Fast Medium
Slow
Alveolar
Bilabial
Context
Dot/Lines show Means
0
25
50
75
100
/u/-
Re
sp
on
se
(%
)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Stimulus Step Number
0
25
50
75
100
/u/-
Re
sp
on
se
(%
)
Effect of Contexts (Paired T-Test)Slow: [t=-0.078 (31), p=0.938]Medium: [t=2.684 (31), p=0.012] *Fast: [t=4.657 (31), p<0.001] *
/u/-
Resp
onse
(%
)
/
u/-
Resp
onse
(%
)
Fast
Slow
Medium
Stimulus Number
![Page 18: a study on perceptual compensation for / /-fronting in American English](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56815037550346895dbe32db/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
RESULTS: SPEECH RATE * CONTEXT (RT)
Reaction Time for /u/-response
AlveolarBilabial
Context
Error Bars show 95.0% Cl of Mean
Bars show Means
Fast Medium SlowSpeech Rate
0
250
500
750
Rea
ctio
n T
ime
(msc
)
634 667661
755
695
611
Effect of Contexts (Paired T-Test)Slow: [t=-0.157 (31), p=0.876]Medium: [t=-2.257 (31), p=0.031]*Fast: [t= 0.686 (31), p=0.498
![Page 19: a study on perceptual compensation for / /-fronting in American English](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56815037550346895dbe32db/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSIONS
No compensation when consonantal contexts were replaced by white noise and “assumed” contexts were given visually.
Degree of boundary shift varies across stimuli and experimental condition: Greater shift with precursor sentences than without it. Progressively greater boundary shift as speech rate increases
Reaction Time for /u/-response Significant context effect (A <B) in majority of conditions
1) Degree of Compensation for coarticulation may be influenced by speechlike-ness of the stimuli. Compensation is triggered when linguistic expectation plays a role in perception.
2) Compensation could be incomplete. 3) Perceptual Compensation may be related to contrast
enhancement.
On the linguistic theory of sound change: Assimilatory sound change by incomplete correction?
![Page 20: a study on perceptual compensation for / /-fronting in American English](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081520/56815037550346895dbe32db/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Thank you!!