Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 68, Issue 7, pp 1227–1240 | Cite as

On the causes of compensation for coarticulation: Evidence for phonological mediation



This study examined whether compensation for coarticulation in fricative-vowel syllables is phonologically mediated or a consequence of auditory processes. Smits (2001a) had shown that compensation occurs for anticipatory lip rounding in a fricative caused by a following rounded vowel in Dutch. In a first experiment, the possibility that compensation is due to general auditory processing was investigated using nonspeech sounds. These did not cause context effects akin to compensation for coarticulation, although nonspeech sounds influenced speech sound identification in an integrative fashion. In a second experiment, a possible phonological basis for compensation for coarticulation was assessed by using audiovisual speech. Visual displays, which induced the perception of a rounded vowel, also influenced compensation for anticipatory lip rounding in the fricative. These results indicate that compensation for anticipatory lip rounding in fricative-vowel syllables is phonologically mediated. This result is discussed in the light of other compensation-for-coarticulation findings and general theories of speech perception.

Supplementary material

Mitterer-PP-2006 Exp 3 (sie).zip (39.2 mb)
Supplementary material, approximately 340 KB.
Mitterer-PP-2006 Exp 3 (sjie).zip (39.4 mb)
Supplementary material, approximately 340 KB.
Mitterer-PP-2006 Exp 3 (sjuu).zip (39.7 mb)
Supplementary material, approximately 340 KB.
Mitterer-PP-2006 Exp 3 (suu).zip (38.9 mb)
Supplementary material, approximately 340 KB.
Mitterer-PP-2006 Exps 1-2-3(catch).zip (3.4 mb)
Supplementary material, approximately 340 KB.


  1. Akker, E., &Cutler, A. (2003). Prosodic cues to semantic structure in native and nonnative listening.Bilingualism: Language & Cognition,6, 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beddor, P. S., Harnsberger, J. D., &Lindemann, S. (2002). Languagespecific patterns of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation: Acoustic structures and their perceptual correlates.Journal of Phonetics,30, 591–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beddor, P. S., &Krakow, R. A. (1999). Perception of coarticulatory nasalization by speakers of English and Thai: Evidence for partial compensation.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,106, 2868–2887.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In W. Strange (Ed.),Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 167–200). Baltimore, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
  5. Blomert, L., Mitterer, H., &Paffen, C. (2004). In search of the auditory, phonetic and/or phonological problems in dyslexia: Context effects in speech perception.Journal of Speech, Language, & Hearing Research,47, 1030–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boersma, P., &Weenink, D. (2004).Praat 4.0. [Computer software]. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, Institute of Phonetic Sciences.Google Scholar
  7. Booij, G. (1995).The phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bregman, A. S. (1990).Auditory scene analysis: The perceptual organization of sound. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Coady, J. A., Kluender, K. R., &Rhode, W. S. (2003). Effects of contrast between onsets of speech and other complex spectra.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,114, 2225–2235.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darcy, I., Peperkamp, S., & Dupoux, E. (in press). Bilinguals play by the rules: Perceptual compensation for assimilation in late L2-learners. In J. Cole & J. Hualde (Eds.),Papers in laboratory phonology 9: Change in phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Diehl, R., Lotto, A. J., &Holt, L. L. (2004). Speech perception.Annual Review of Psychology,55, 149–179.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Farnetani, E. (1997). Coarticulation and connected speech processes. In W. J. Hardcastle & J. Laver (Eds.),The handbook of phonetic sciences (pp. 371–404). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Florentine, M., Buus, S., &Poulsen, T. (1996). Temporal integration of loudness as a function of level.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,99, 1633–1644.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fowler, C. A. (1990). Sound-producing sources as objects of perception: Rate normalization and nonspeech perception.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,89, 2905–2909.Google Scholar
  15. Fowler, C. A. (1992). Vowel duration and closure duration in voiced and unvoiced stops: There are no contrast effects here.Journal of Phonetics, 20, 143–165.Google Scholar
  16. Fowler, C. A. (1996). Listeners do hear sounds, not tongues.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,99, 1730–1741.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fowler, C. A. (2006). Compensation for coarticulation reflects gesture perception, not spectral contrast.Perception & Psychophysics,68, 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fowler, C. A., &Brown, J. M. (2000). Perceptual parsing of acoustic consequences of velum lowering from information for vowels.Perception & Psychophysics,62, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fowler, C. A., Brown, J. M., &Mann, V. A. (2000). Contrast effects do not underlie effects of preceding liquids on stop-consonant identification by humans.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 877–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fowler, C. A., &Dekle, D. J. (1991). Listening with eye and hand: Cross-modal contributions to speech perception.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,17, 816–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fowler, C. A., &Smith, M. R. (1986). Speech perception as “vector analysis”: An approach to the problems of invariance and segmentation. In J. S. Perkell & D. H. Klatt (Eds.),Invariance and variability in speech processes (pp. 123–139). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Gaskell, M. G. (2003). Modelling regressive and progressive effects of assimilation in speech perception.Journal of Phonetics,31, 447–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gibson, J. J. (1979).The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  24. Hockett, C. F. (1955).A manual of phonology. Baltimore: Waverly.Google Scholar
  25. Holt, L. L. (2005). Temporally nonadjacent nonlinguistic sounds affect speech categorization.Psychological Science,16, 305–312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holt, L. L., &Lotto, A. J. (2002). Behavioral examinations of the level of auditory processing of speech context effects.Hearing Research,167, 156–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holt, L. L., Lotto, A. J., &Kluender, K. R. (2000). Neighboring spectral content influences vowel identification.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,108, 710–722.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holt, L. L., Lotto, A. J., &Kluender, K. R. (2001). Influence of fundamental frequency on stop-consonant voicing perception: A case of learned covariation or auditory enhancement?Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,109, 764–774.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holt, L. L., Stephens, J. D. W., &Lotto, A. J. (2005). A critical evaluation of visually moderated phonetic context effects.Perception & Psychophysics,67, 1102–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnson, K., Strand, E. A., &D'Imperio, M. (1999). Auditory-visual integration of talker gender in vowel perception.Journal of Phonetics,27, 359–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kluender, K. R., Coady, J. A., &Kiefte, M. (2001). Sensitivity to change in perception of speech.Speech Communication,41, 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ladefoged, P., &Broadbent, D. E. (1957). Information conveyed by vowels.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,27, 98–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liberman, A. M. (1996).Speech: A special code. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Liberman, A. M., Delattre, P. C., &Cooper, F. S. (1952). The role of selected stimulus variables in the perception of unvoiced stop consonants.American Journal of Psychology,65, 497–516.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liberman, A. M., &Whalen, D. W. (2000). On the relation of speech to language.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,4, 187–196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindblom, B. E., &Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967). On the role of formant transitions in vowel recognition.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,42, 830–843.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lotto, A. J., &Kluender, K. R. (1998). General contrast effects in speech perception: Effect of preceding liquid on stop consonant identification.Perception & Psychophysics,60, 602–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lotto, A. J., Kluender, K. R., &Holt, L. L. (1997). Perceptual compensation for coarticulation by Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica).Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,102, 1134–1140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lotto, A. J., Sullivan, S. C., &Holt, L. L. (2003). Central locus for nonspeech context effects on phonetic identification (L).Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,113, 53–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mann, V. A. (1980). Influence of preceding liquid on stop-consonant perception.Perception & Psychophysics,28, 407–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mann, V. A. (1986). Distinguishing universal and language-dependent levels of speech perception: Evidence from Japanese listeners' perception of English “l” and “r.”Cognition,24, 169–196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mann, V. A., &Repp, B. H. (1980). Influence of vocalic context on perception of the [sh]-[s] distinction.Perception & Psychophysics,28, 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mann, V. A., &Repp, B. H. (1981). Influence of preceding fricative on stop-consonant perception.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,69, 548–558.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McGurk, H., &MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices.Nature,264, 746–748.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mitterer, H., &Blomert, L. (2003). Coping with phonological assimilation in speech perception: Evidence for early compensation.Perception & Psychophysics,65, 956–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mitterer, H., Csépe, V., &Blomert, L. (2006). The role of perceptual integration in the recognition of assimilated words forms.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,59, 1305–1334.Google Scholar
  47. Mitterer, H., Csépe, V., Honbolygo, F., &Blomert, L. (2006). The recognition of phonologically assimilated words does not depend on specific language experience.Cognitive Science,30, 451–479.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mitterer, H., &Ernestus, M. (2006). Listeners recover /t/s that speakers reduce: Evidence from /t/-lenition in Dutch.Journal of Phonetics,34, 73–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nearey, T. D. (1989). Static, dynamic, and relational properties in vowel perception.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,85, 2088–2113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Remez, R. E., Rubin, P. E., Berns, S. M., Pardo, J. S., &Lang, J. M. (1994). On the perceptual organization of speech.Psychological Review,101, 129–156.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scott, S. K., &Wise, R. J. S. (2004). The functional neuroanatomy of prelexical processing in speech perception.Cognition,92, 13–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sinnott, J. M., &Saporita, T. A. (2000). Differences in American English, Spanish, and monkey perception of thesay-stay trading relation.Perception & Psychophysics,62, 1312–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smits, R. (2001a). Evidence for hierarchical categorization of coarticulated phonemes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 1145–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smits, R. (2001b). Hierarchical categorization of coarticulated phonemes: A theoretical analysis.Perception & Psychophysics,63, 1109–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vroomen, J. (1992).Hearing voices and seeing lips: Investigations in the psychology of lipreading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
  56. Vroomen, J., &de Gelder, B. (2001). Lipreading and the compensation for coarticulation mechanism.Language & Cognitive Processes,16, 661–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Warren, R. M. (1999).Auditory perception: A new analysis and synthesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Weber, A., &Cutler, A. (2004). Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition.Journal of Memory & Language,50, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Whalen, D. H. (1990). Coarticulation is largely planned.Journal of Phonetics,18, 3–35.Google Scholar
  60. Yabe, H., Tervaniemi, M., Sinkkonen, J., Huotilainen, M., Ilmoniemi, R. J., &Näätänen, R. (1998). Temporal window of integration of auditory information in the human brain.Psychophysiology,35, 615–619.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for PsycholinguisticsNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations