This Title All WIREs
How to cite this WIREs title:
WIREs Cogn Sci
Impact Factor: 3.476

Phonetic cue weighting in perception and production

Full article on Wiley Online Library:   HTML PDF

Can't access this content? Tell your librarian.

Abstract Speech sound contrasts differ along multiple phonetic dimensions. During speech perception, listeners must decide which cues are relevant, and determine the relative importance of each cue, while also integrating other, signal‐external cues. The comparison of cue weighting in perception and production bears on a range of theoretical issues including the processes underlying sound change, the time course of learning, the nature of cues, and the perception‐production interface. Research examining the relative alignment of cue weighting across the modalities, on both a community and individual level, has revealed both parallels and asymmetries between the modalities. The extraordinarily wide range of ways that have been used to conceptualize and quantify cue weights reflects the inherent theoretical, methodological, and analytical differences between the two modalities. More consideration of the choices of analytical metrics, explicit discussion of the theoretical assumptions that underlie them, and systematic investigations of different types of cues will lead to more generalizable findings that can be incorporated into computational implementable models of speech processing. This article is categorized under: Linguistics > Language in Mind and Brain Psychology > Language
Use of VOT and f0 in production and perception of the English stop voicing contrast. (a) VOT and f0 of word‐initial stops from 24 English speakers' productions (data from Schertz, ); (b) 24 English listeners' judgments of a “ba”‐“pa” continuum varying in VOT and f0. Each cell represents one stimulus, with the darkness of the cell representing the percentage “voiceless” response in a forced‐choice task: the darkest cells elicited 100% “pa” response, and white cells elicited 100% “ba” response (data from Schertz, Cho, Lotto, & Warner, )
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Hypothetical response data from the same individual with the same cue weighting strategy across two experiments differing only in the range of cue1
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Two hypothetical distributions of two cues signaling a two‐way contrast in production. The distribution of cue1 is identical in the two graphs, and only the distribution of cue2 differs. Under most quantifications, cue1 will have a smaller weight in (a) than (b) given the difference in the distributions of cue2
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Within‐category cue covariation: (a) shows possibilities for two independently informative cues (adapted from Clayards, ), with the within‐category correlation either matching the direction of across‐category correlation (left panel), mismatching (right panel) or having no within‐category correlation, while (b) shows the relationship between a contextualizing cue2 and an associated informative cue1
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Independently informative vs. contextualizing cues: The top row shows hypothetical results of a forced‐choice perception task with stimuli varying in the independently informative cue of f0 (left) or the contextualizing cue of speech rate (right), with identical results. The bottom row shows the distribution of the same cues in production of the contrast (and therefore in the input)
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]

Browse by Topic

Psychology > Language
Linguistics > Language in Mind and Brain

Access to this WIREs title is by subscription only.

Recommend to Your
Librarian Now!

The latest WIREs articles in your inbox

Sign Up for Article Alerts