Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 77, Issue 1, pp 311–328 | Cite as

The time course of auditory and language-specific mechanisms in compensation for sibilant assimilation

  • Meghan Clayards
  • Oliver Niebuhr
  • M. Gareth Gaskell


Models of spoken-word recognition differ on whether compensation for assimilation is language-specific or depends on general auditory processing. English and French participants were taught words that began or ended with the sibilants /s/ and /∫/. Both languages exhibit some assimilation in sibilant sequences (e.g., /s/ becomes like [∫] in dress shop and classe chargée), but they differ in the strength and predominance of anticipatory versus carryover assimilation. After training, participants were presented with novel words embedded in sentences, some of which contained an assimilatory context either preceding or following. A continuum of target sounds ranging from [s] to [∫] was spliced into the novel words, representing a range of possible assimilation strengths. Listeners’ perceptions were examined using a visual-world eyetracking paradigm in which the listener clicked on pictures matching the novel words. We found two distinct language-general context effects: a contrastive effect when the assimilating context preceded the target, and flattening of the sibilant categorization function (increased ambiguity) when the assimilating context followed. Furthermore, we found that English but not French listeners were able to resolve the ambiguity created by the following assimilatory context, consistent with their greater experience with assimilation in this context. The combination of these mechanisms allows listeners to deal flexibly with variability in speech forms.


Temporal processing Speech perception Spoken word recognition 


Author note

The authors thank Gerry Altmann, Dirk Kertzel, and Uli Fraunfelder for the use of their eyetrackers and lab space, and Holger Mitterer for comments on a previous version of this manuscript. Portions of this work were presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society in Boston, 2009, and the 10th International Symposium on Psycholinguistics, Donastia San-Sebastian, 2011. This research was supported by the Marie Curie training network Sound to Sense.


  1. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2011). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes [Software]. Retrieved from
  2. Boersma, P. (2001). Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5, 341–345.Google Scholar
  3. Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. (1992). Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica, 49, 155–180.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. doi:10.1121/1.1608955 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Darcy, I., Peperkamp, S., & Dupoux, E. (2007). Bilinguals play by the rules. Perceptual compensation for assimilation in late L2-learners. In J. S. Cole & J. Hualde (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology 9 (pp. 411–442). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  6. Darcy, I., Ramus, F., Christophe, A., Kinzler, K., & Dupoux, E. (2009). Phonological knowledge in compensation for native and non-native assimilation. In F. Kügler, C. Féry, & R. F. H. E. van de Vijver (Eds.), Variation and gradience in phonetics and phonology (pp. 265–309). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. Diehl, R. L., Lotto, A. J., & Holt, L. L. (2004). Speech perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 149–179. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142028 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dilley, L. C., & Pitt, M. A. (2007). A study of regressive place assimilation in spontaneous speech and its implications for spoken word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122, 2340–2353.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Duyck, W., Desmet, T., Verbeke, L. P. C., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). WordGen: A tool for word selection and nonword generation in Dutch, English, German, and French. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 488–499. doi:10.3758/BF03195595 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fleischer, D., Wagner, M., & Clayards, M. (2013). A following sibilant increases the ambiguity of a sibilant continuum. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, 19, 060275. doi:10.1121/1.4800753 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fowler, C. A. (1986). An event approach to the study of speech perception from a direct-realist perspective. Journal of Phonetics, 14, 3–28.Google Scholar
  12. Gaskell, M. G. (2003). Modeling regressive and progressive effects of assimilation in speech perception. Journal of Phonetics, 31, 447–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaskell, M. G., Hare, M., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1995). A connectionist model of phonological representation in speech perception. Cognitive Science, 19, 407–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1996). Phonological variation and inference in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 144–158. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.22.1.144 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1998). Mechanisms of phonological inference in speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 380–396. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.2.380 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaskell, M. G., & Snoeren, N. D. (2008). The impact of strong assimilation on the perception of connected speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1632–1647. doi:10.1037/a0011977 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gow, D. W., Jr. (2002). Does English coronal place assimilation create lexical ambiguity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 163–179. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.28.1.163 Google Scholar
  18. Gow, D. W., Jr. (2003). Feature parsing: Feature cue mapping in spoken word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 575–590. doi:10.3758/BF03194584 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gow, D. W., Jr., & Im, A. M. (2004). A cross-linguistic examination of assimilation context effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gow, D. W., Jr., & McMurray, B. (2007). Word recognition and phonology: The case of English coronal place assimilation. In J. S. Cole & J. Hualdo (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology 9 (pp. 173–200). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  21. Gow, D. W., Jr., & Segawa, J. A. (2009). Articulatory mediation of speech perception: A causal analysis of multi-modal imaging data. Cognition, 110, 222–236. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Holst, T., & Nolan, F. (1995). The influence of syntactic structure on [s] to [ʃ] assimilation. In B. Connell & A. Arvaniti (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology IV: Phonology and phonetic evidence (pp. 315–333). Cambridge, UK: Cambridege University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holt, L. L., & Kluender, K. R. (2000). General auditory processes contribute to perceptual accommodation of coarticulation. Phonetica, 57, 170–180.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hura, S. L., Lindblom, B., & Diehl, R. L. (1992). On the role of perception in shaping phonological assimilation rules. Language and Speech, 35, 59–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kharlamov, V., Campbell, K., & Kazanina, N. (2011). Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence for early and eutomatic detection of phonological equivalence in variable speech inputs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 3331–3342.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kingston, J., Kawahara, S., Chambless, D., Key, M., & Watsky, S. (2008, July). The independence of auditory and categorical effects on speech perception. Poster presented at LabPhon11, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  27. Kingston, J., Kawahara, S., Mash, D., & Chambless, D. (2011). Auditory contrast versus compensation for coarticulation: Data from Japanese and English listeners. Language and Speech, 54, 499–525.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kohler, K. J. (1990). Segmental reduction in connected speech in German: Phonological facts and phonetic explanations. In Speech production and speech modelling (pp. 69–92). Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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. doi:10.1121/1.419865 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Mann, V. A., & Repp, B. H. (1980). Influence of vocalic context on perception of the [∫]–[s] distinction. Perception & Psychophysics, 28, 213–228. doi:10.3758/BF03204377 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marslen-Wilson, W., Moss, H. E., & van Halen, S. (1996). Perceptual distance and competition in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1376–1392. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.22.6.1376 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. McMurray, B., Clayards, M. A., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2008). Tracking the time course of phonetic cue integration during spoken word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1064–1071. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.6.1064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mitterer, H. (2006). On the causes of compensation for coarticulation: Evidence for phonological mediation. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 1227–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mitterer, H. (2011). Recognizing reduced forms: Different processing mechanisms for similar reductions. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mitterer, H., & Blomert, L. (2003). Coping with phonological assimilation in speech perception: Evidence for early compensation. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 956–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mitterer, H., Csépe, V., Honbolygo, F., & Blomert, L. (2006a). The recognition of phonologically assimilated words does not depend on specific language experience. Cognitive Science, 30, 451–479. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_57 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Mitterer, H., Csépe, V., & Blomert, L. (2006b). The role of perceptual integration in the recognition of assimilated word forms. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1395–1424. doi:10.1080/17470210500198726 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mitterer, H., & McQueen, J. M. (2009). Processing reduced word-forms in speech perception using probabilistic knowledge about speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 244–263. doi:10.1037/a0012730 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Mitterer, H., & Reinisch, E. (2013). No delays in application of perceptual learning in speech recognition: Evidence from eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 527–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Näätänen, R. (2001). The perception of speech sounds by the human brain as reflected by the mismatch negativity (MMN) and its magnetic equivalent (MMNm). Psychophysiology, 38, 1–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Niebuhr, O., Clayards, M., Meunier, C., & Lancia, L. (2011). On place assimilation in sibilant sequences—Comparing French and English. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 429–451. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2011.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Niebuhr, O., Lancia, L., & Meunier, C. (2008). On place assimilation in French sibilant sequences. In R. Sock, S. Fuchs, & Y. Laprie (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Speech Production Seminar (ISSP08) (pp. 221–224). Strasbourg, France: INRIA.Google Scholar
  44. Niebuhr, O., & Meunier, C. (2011). The phonetic manifestation of French /s#ʃ/ and /ʃ#s/ sequences in different vowel contexts: On the occurrence and the domain of sibilant assimilation. Phonetica, 68, 133–160. doi:10.1159/000331235 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Nolan, F. (1992). The descriptive role of segments: evidence from assimilation. In G. J. Docherty & D. R. Ladd (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology II: Gesture, segment, prosody (pp. 261–280). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ohala, J. J. (Ed.). (1990). The phonetics and phonology of aspects of assimilation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Pouplier, M., Hoole, P., & Scobbie, J. M. (2011). Investigating the asymmetry of English sibilant assimilation: Acoustic and EPG data. Laboratory Phonology, 2, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Revill, K. P., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2008). Context and spoken word recognition in a novel lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1207–1223. doi:10.1037/a0012796 PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Skoruppa, K., Mani, N., & Peperkamp, S. (2013). Toddlers’ processing of phonological alternations: Early compensation for assimilation in English and French. Child Development, 84, 313–330.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Snoeren, N. D. (2011). Psycholinguistique cognitive de la parole assimilée. Saarbrücken, Germany: Editions Universitaires Européennes.Google Scholar
  51. Snoeren, N. D., Gaskell, M. G., & Di Betta, A. M. (2009). The perception of assimilation in newly learned novel words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 542–549.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Snoeren, N. D., Segui, J., & Halle, P. A. (2008a). On the role of regular phonological variation in lexical access: Evidence from voice assimilation in French. Cognition, 108, 512–521.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Snoeren, N. D., Segui, J., & Halle, P. A. (2008b). Perceptual processing of partially and fully assimilated words in French. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34, 193–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Soli, S. D. (1981). Second formants in fricatives: Acoustic consequences of fricative–vowel coarticulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 70, 976–984. doi:10.1121/1.387032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sonderegger, M., & Yu, A. C. L. (2010). A rational account of perceptual compensation for coarticulation. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 375–380). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  56. Steriade, D. (2001). Directional asymmetries in place assimilation. In K. J. E. Hume (Ed.), The role of speech perception in phonology (pp. 219–250). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  57. Utman, J. A., Blumstein, S. E., & Burton, M. W. (2000). Effects of subphonetic and syllable structure variation on word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1297–1311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Whalen, D. H. (1990). Coarticulation is largely planned. Journal of Phonetics, 18, 3–35.Google Scholar
  59. Whalen, D. H. (1991). Perception of the English /s/–/sh/ distinction relies on fricative noises and transitions, not on brief spectral slices. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 90, 1774–1776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meghan Clayards
    • 1
    • 2
  • Oliver Niebuhr
    • 3
  • M. Gareth Gaskell
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.School of Communication Sciences and DisordersMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Department of General and Comparative LinguisticsUniversity of KielKielGermany
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations