Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 262–268 | Cite as

Generalization in perceptual learning for speech

  • Tanya KraljicEmail author
  • Arthur G. Samuel
Brief Reports


Lexical context strongly influences listeners’ identification of ambiguous sounds. For example, a sound midway between /f/ and /s/ is reported as /f/ in “sheri_’” but as /s/ in “Pari_.” Norris, McQueen, and Cutler (2003) have demonstrated that after hearing such lexically determined phonemes, listeners expand their phonemic categories to include more ambiguous tokens than before. We tested whether listeners adjust their phonemic categories for a specific speaker: Do listeners learn a particular speaker’s “accent”? Similarly, we examined whether perceptual learning is specific to the particular ambiguous phonemes that listeners hear, or whether the adjustments generalize to related sounds. Participants heard ambiguous /d/ or /t/ phonemes during a lexical decision task. They then categorized sounds on /d/-/t/ and /b/-/p/ continua, either in the same voice that they had heard for lexical decision, or in a different voice. Perceptual learning generalized across both speaker and test continua: Changes in perceptual representations are robust and broadly tuned.


Lexical Decision Lexical Decision Task Perceptual Learning Critical Item Critical Word 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bertelson, P., Vroomen, J., &de Gelder, B. (dy2003). Visual recalibration of auditory speech identification: A McGurk aftereffect.Psychological Science,14, 592–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradlow, A. R., &Bent, T. (dy2003). Listener adaptation to foreign accented English. In M. J. Sole, D. Recasens, & J. Romero (Eds.),Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 2881–2884). Barcelona: Futurgraphic.Google Scholar
  3. Eisner, F., &McQueen, J. M. (dy2005). The specificity of perceptual learning in speech processing.Perception & Psychophysics,67, 224–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kraljic, T., &Samuel, A. G. (dy2005). Perceptual learning for speech: Is there a return to normal?Cognitive Psychology,51, 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Maye, J., Aslin, R., & Tanenhaus, M. (2005).The weckud wetch of the West: Rapid adaptation to a novel accent. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  6. Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., &Cutler, A. (dy2003). Perceptual learning in speech.Cognitive Psychology,47, 204–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Nygaard, L. C., &Pisoni, D. B. (dy1998). Talker-specific learning in speech perception.Perception & Psychophysics,60, 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Repp, B. H. (dy1984). Categorical perception: Issues, methods, findings. In N. J. Lass (Ed.),Speech and language: Advances in basic research and practice (pp. 243–335). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Vroomen, J., van Linden, S., Keetels, M., de Gelder, B., &Bertelson, P. (dy2004). Selective adaptation and recalibration of auditory speech by lipread information: Dissipation.Speech Communication,44, 55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Zeno, S., Ivens, S., Millard, R., &Duvvuri, R. (dy1995).The educator’s word frequency guide. Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied Science Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State University of New YorkStony Brook

Personalised recommendations