Advertisement

Success and failure in teaching the [r]-[l] contrast to Japanese adults: Tests of a Hebbian model of plasticity and stabilization in spoken language perception

  • Bruce D. McCandliss
  • Julie A. Fiez
  • Athanassios Protopapas
  • Mary Conway
  • James L. McClelland
Article

Abstract

A Hebbian model of learning predicts that adults may be able to acquire a nonnative speech contrast if they are trained with stimuli that are exaggerated to make them perceptually distinct. To test these ideas, we asked Japanese adults to identify contrasting [r]-[l] stimuli (e.g., rock-lock) in two training conditions. In the adaptive condition, the [r]-[l] contrast was exaggerated at first and then adjusted to maintain accurate identification. In the fixed condition, a fixed pair of stimuli were used that were distinguishable by native English speakers but difficult for the Japanese learners to discriminate. To examine whether feedback contributes to learning, we ran separate groups with and without feedback in the fixed and the adaptive conditions. Without feedback, 3 days of adaptive training produced substantial improvements, but 3 days of fixed training produced no benefit relative to control, consistent with the Hebbian account. With feedback, both fixed and adaptive training led to robust improvements, and the benefit of training transferred to a second continuum (e.g., road-load). The results are consistent with Hebbian models that are augmented to be sensitive to feedback.

Keywords

Speech Perception Hebbian Learning Japanese Adult Adaptive Condition Phonetic Category 
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.

References

  1. Barto, A. G. (1994). Reinforcement learning control. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 4, 888–893.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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. 171–204). Baltimore: York.Google Scholar
  3. Best, C. T., McRoberts, G. W., & Sithole, N. (1988). The phonological basis of perceptual loss for nonnative contrasts: Maintenance of discrimination among Zulu clicks by English-speaking adults and infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 14, 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradlow, A. R., Akahane-Yamada, R., Pisoni, D. B., & Tohkura, Y. (1999). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and / l/: Long-term retention of learning in speech perception and production. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 977–985.Google Scholar
  5. Bradlow, A. R., Pisoni, D. B., Yamada, R. A., & Tohkura, Y. (1997). Training the Japanese listener to identify English /r/ and /l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 2299–2310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flege, J. [E.] (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233–273). Baltimore: York.Google Scholar
  7. Flege, J. E., Takagi, N., & Mann, V. (1996). Lexical familiarity and English-language experience affect Japanese adults’ perception of / r/ and / l/. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99, 1161–1173.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guenther, F. H., & Gjaja, M. N. (1996). The perceptual magnet effect as an emergent property of neural map formation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 1111–1121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guion, S. G., Flege, J. E., Akahane-Yamada, R. K., & Pruitt, J. C. (2000). An investigation of current models of second language speech perception: The case of Japanese adults’ perception of English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 2711–2724.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Iverson, P., & Kuhl, P. (1995). Mapping the perceptual magnet effect for speech using signal detection theory and multidimensional scaling. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 553–562.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jamieson, D. G., & Morosan, D. E. (1986). Training non-native speech contrasts in adults: Acquisition of the English ð-π contrast by francophones. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 205–215.Google Scholar
  13. Jamieson, D. G., & Morosan, D. E. (1989). Training new, nonnative speech contrasts: A comparison of the prototype and perceptual fading techniques. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 43, 88–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kohonen, T. (1982). Self-organized formation of topologically correct feature maps. Biological Cybernetics, 43, 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99, 22–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuhl, P. K. (1991). Human adults and human infants show a “perceptual magnet effect” for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 93–107.Google Scholar
  17. Kuhl, P. K. (1993). Developmental speech perception: Implications for models of language impairment. In P. Tallal, A. M. Galaburda, R. R. Llinas, & C. von Euler (Eds.), Temporal information processing in the nervous system: Special reference to dyslexia and dysphasia (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 682, pp. 248–263). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  18. Kuhl, P. K., Andruski, J. E., Chistovich, I. A., Chistovich, L. A., Kozhevnikova, E. V., Ryskina, V. L., Stolyarova, E. I., Sundberg, U., & Lacerda, F. (1997). Cross-language analysis of phonetic units in language addressed to infants. Science, 277, 684–686.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuhl, P. K., & Iverson, P. (1995). Linguistic experience and the “perceptual magnet effect.” In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 121–154). Baltimore: York.Google Scholar
  20. Kuhl, P. K., Williams, K. A., Lacerda, F., Stevens, K. N., & Lindblom, B. (1992). Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science, 225, 606–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lacerda, F. (1995). The perceptual-magnet effect: An emergent consequence of exemplar-based phonetic memory. In K. Elenius & R. Brandrud (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 140–147). Stockholm: Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan and Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  22. Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. S., & Studdert-Kenedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 74, 431–461.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Linsker, R. (1986a). From basic network principles to neural architecture: I. Emergence of spatial-opponent cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 83, 7508–7512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Linsker, R. (1986b). From basic network principles to neural architecture: II. Emergence of orientation-selective cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 83, 8390–8394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Linsker, R. (1986c). From basic network principles to neural architecture: III. Emergence of orientation columns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 83, 8779–8783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lively, S. E., Logan, J. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1993). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: II. The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94, 1242–1255.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lively, S. E., Pisoni, D. B., Yamada, R. A., Tohkura, Y., & Yamada, T. (1994). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/and /l/: III. Long-term retention of new phonetic categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96, 2076–2087.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Logan, J. S., Lively, S. E., & Pisoni, D. B. (1991). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: A first report. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 874–886.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Logan, J. S., & Pruitt, J. S. (1995). Methodological issues in training listeners to perceive nonnative phonemes: Linguistic experience and the “perceptual magnet effect.” In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 121–154). Baltimore: York.Google Scholar
  30. McClelland, J. L., Thomas, A., McCandliss, B. D., & Fiez, J. A. (1999). Understanding failures of learning: Hebbian learning, competition for representational space, and some preliminary experimental data. In J. Reggia, E. Ruppin, & D. Glanzman (Eds.), Brain, behavioral, and cognitive disorders: The neurocomputational perspective (pp. 75–80). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Merzenich, M. M., Jenkins, W. M., Johnson, P., Schreiner, C., Miller, S. L., & Tallal, P. (1996). Temporal processing deficits of language-learning impaired children ameliorated by training. Science, 271, 77–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miller, K. D., Keller, J. B., & Stryker, M. P. (1989). Ocular dominance column development: Analysis and simulation. Science, 245, 605–615.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miyawaki, K., Strange, W., Verbrugge, R., Liberman, A. M., Jenkins, J. J., & Fujimura, O. (1975). An effect of linguistic experience: The discrimination of [r] and [l] by native speakers of Japanese and English. Perception & Psychophysics, 18, 331–340.Google Scholar
  34. Morosan, D. E., & Jamieson, D. G. (1989). Evaluation of a technique for training new speech contrasts: Generalization across voices, but not word-position or task. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 32, 501–511.Google Scholar
  35. O’Reilly, R. C. (1996). Biologically plausible error-driven learning using local activation differences: The generalized recirculation algorithm. Neural Computation, 8, 895–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. O’Reilly, R. C. (1998). Six principles for biologically based computational models of cortical cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,2, 455–462.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Pisoni, D. B., Aslin, R. N., Perey, A. J., & Hennessy, B. L. (1982). Some effects of laboratory training on identification and discrimination of voicing contrasts in stop consonants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 8, 297–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Protopapas, A., & Calhoun, B. (2000). Adaptive phonetic training for second language learners. In P. Delcloque (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Integrating Speech Technology in Language Learning (pp. 31–38). University of Abertay Dundee, U.K.Google Scholar
  39. Pruitt, J. S. (1995). The perception of Hindi dental and retroflex stop consonants by native speakers of Japanese and American English (University Microfilms No. 9542085). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida.Google Scholar
  40. Pruitt, J. S., Kawahara, H., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Kubo, R. (1998). Methods of enhancing speech stimuli for perceptual training: Exaggerated articulation, context truncation, and “STRAIGHT” re-synthesis. In R. Carlson, C. Dunger, B. Granstrom, & A. Oster (Eds.), Speech technology in language learning (pp. 105–108). Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  41. Rabiner, L. R., & Schafer, R. W. (1978). Digital processing of speech signals. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In A. H. Block & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  43. Rosenblatt, F. (1962). Principles of neurodynamics. New York: Spartan.Google Scholar
  44. Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986). Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature, 323, 533–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-olds. Science, 274, 1926–1928.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sawusch, J. R., & Gagnon, D. A. (1995). Auditory coding, cues, and coherence in phonetic perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 635–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Strange, W., & Dittmann, S. (1984). Effects of discrimination training on the perception of /r-l / by Japanese adults learning English. Perception & Psychophysics, 36, 131–145.Google Scholar
  48. Takagi, N. (1993). Perception of American English /r/ and /l/ by adult Japanese learners of English: A unified view. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
  49. Tallal, P., Miller, S. L., Bedi, G., Byma, G., Wang, X., Nagaraja, S. S., Schreiner, C., Jenkins, W. M., & Merzenich, M. M. (1996). Language comprehension in language-learning impaired children improved with acoustically modified speech. Science, 271, 81–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tees, R. C., & Werker, J. F. (1984). Perceptual flexibility: Maintenance or recovery of the ability to discriminate nonnative speech sounds. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 38, 579–590.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Thomas, A., & McClelland, J. L. (1997). How plasticity can prevent adaptation: Induction and remediation of perceptual consequences of early experience. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts, 23, 234.Google Scholar
  52. Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1983). Developmental changes across childhood in the perception of non-native speech sounds. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 37, 278–286.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1984). Phonemic and phonetic factors in adult cross-language speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 75, 1866–1878.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce D. McCandliss
    • 4
  • Julie A. Fiez
    • 4
  • Athanassios Protopapas
    • 2
  • Mary Conway
    • 4
    • 1
  • James L. McClelland
    • 4
    • 3
  1. 1.University of PittsburghPittsburgh
  2. 2.Scientific Learning CorporationOakland
  3. 3.Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh
  4. 4.Center for the Neural Basis of CognitionPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations