To adapt to situations in which speech perception is difficult, listeners can adjust boundaries between phoneme categories using perceptual learning. Such adjustments can draw on lexical information in surrounding speech, or on visual cues via speech-reading. In the present study, listeners proved they were able to flexibly adjust the boundary between two plosive/stop consonants, /p/-/t/, using both lexical and speech-reading information and given the same experimental design for both cue types. Videos of a speaker pronouncing pseudo-words and audio recordings of Dutch words were presented in alternating blocks of either stimulus type. Listeners were able to switch between cues to adjust phoneme boundaries, and resulting effects were comparable to results from listeners receiving only a single source of information. Overall, audiovisual cues (i.e., the videos) produced the stronger effects, commensurate with their applicability for adapting to noisy environments. Lexical cues were able to induce effects with fewer exposure stimuli and a changing phoneme bias, in a design unlike most prior studies of lexical retuning. While lexical retuning effects were relatively weaker compared to audiovisual recalibration, this discrepancy could reflect how lexical retuning may be more suitable for adapting to speakers than to environments. Nonetheless, the presence of the lexical retuning effects suggests that it may be invoked at a faster rate than previously seen. In general, this technique has further illuminated the robustness of adaptability in speech perception, and offers the potential to enable further comparisons across differing forms of perceptual learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Bertelson, P., Vroomen, J., & De Gelder, B. (2003). Visual recalibration of auditory speech identification: a McGurk aftereffect. Psychological Science, 14(6), 592–597. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1470.x
Boersma, P., & van Heuven, V. (2001). Speak and unSpeak with PRAAT. Glot International, 5(9/10), 341–347. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e31821473f7
Bruggeman, L. & Cutler, A. (2019). No L1 privilege in talker adaptation. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000646
Cutler, A. (2012). Native listening: the flexibility dimension. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 169–187. https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.1.2.02cut
Cutler, A., Eisner, F., McQueen, J. M., & Norris, D. (2010). How abstract phonemic categories are necessary for coping with speaker-related variation. Laboratory Phonology, 10, 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
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: A Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc, 36(3), 488–499. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195595
Eimas, P. D., & Corbit, J. D. (1973). Selective adaptation of linguistic feature detectors. Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90006-6
Eisner, F., & McQueen, J. M. (2006). Perceptual learning in speech: stability over time. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(4), 1950-1953. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2178721
Ganong, W. F. (1980). Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 6(1), 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1518.104.22.168
Keetels, M., Pecoraro, M., & Vroomen, J. (2015). Recalibration of auditory phonemes by lipread speech is ear-specific. Cognition, 141, 121–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.019
Keetels, M., Stekelenburg, J. J., & Vroomen, J. (2016). A spatial gradient in phonetic recalibration by lipread speech. Journal of Phonetics, 56, 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2016.02.005
Kleinschmidt, D. F., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). Robust speech perception: recognize the familiar, generalize to the similar, and adapt to the novel. Psychological Review, 122(2), 148–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038695
Kraljic, T., & Samuel, A. G. (2007). Perceptual adjustments to multiple speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.010
Kraljic, T., & Samuel, A. G. (2009). Perceptual learning for speech. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 71(3), 481–489. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP
Lüttke, C. S., Pérez-Bellido, A., & de Lange, F. P. (2018). Rapid recalibration of speech perception after experiencing the McGurk illusion. Royal Society Open Science, 5(3), 170909. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170909
Macleod, A., & Summerfield, Q. (1987). Quantifying the contribution of vision to speech perception in noise. British Journal of Audiology, 21(2), 131-141. https://doi.org/10.3109/03005368709077786
Massaro, D. W., & Jesse, A. (2007). Audiovisual speech perception and word recognition. In M. G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 19-35). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198568971.013.0002
McGurk, H., & MacDonald, M. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264(5588), 746.
McQueen, J. M. (1991). The influence of the lexicon on phonetic categorization: stimulus quality in word-final ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17(2), 433–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1522.214.171.1243
Mitchel, A. D., Gerfen, C., & Weiss, D. J. (2016). Audiovisual perceptual learning with multiple speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 56, 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2016.02.003
Mitterer, H., & Reinisch, E. (2017). Visual speech influences speech perception immediately but not automatically. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 79(2), 660–678. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016-1249-6
Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2003). Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 204–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00006-9
Repp, B. H. (1981). Perceptual equivalence of two kinds of ambiguous speech stimuli. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 18(1), 12-14. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03333556
Samuel, A. G. (2001). Knowing a word affects the fundamental perception of the sounds within it. Psychological Science, 12(4), 348–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00364
Sumby, W. H., & Pollack, I. (1954). Visual contribution to speech intelligibility in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 26(2), 212-215. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1907309
Van Linden, S., & Vroomen, J. (2007). Recalibration of phonetic categories by lipread speech versus lexical information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(6), 1483–1494. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-15126.96.36.1993
Vroomen, J. & Baart, M. (2009). Recalibration of phonetic categories by lipread speech: measuring aftereffects after a 24-hour delay. Language and Speech, 52(2-3), 341-350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830909103178
Vroomen, J., & Baart, M. (2012). Phonetic recalibration in audiovisual speech. In M. M. Murray and M. T. Wallace (Eds.) The Neural Bases of Multisensory Processes. (pp. 363–379). Boca raton (FL): CRC Press.
Vroomen, J., van Linden, S., de Gelder, B., & Bertelson, P. (2007). Visual recalibration and selective adaptation in auditory-visual speech perception: contrasting build-up courses. Neuropsychologia, 45(3), 572–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.01.031
Vroomen, J., van Linden, S., Keetels, M., de Gelder, B., & Bertelson, P. (2004). Selective adaptation and recalibration of auditory speech by lipread information: dissipation. Speech Communication, 44(1-4), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2004.03.009
We acknowledge financial support from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research gravity program Language in Interaction.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Ullas, S., Formisano, E., Eisner, F. et al. Interleaved lexical and audiovisual information can retune phoneme boundaries. Atten Percept Psychophys (2020). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01961-8
- Phoneme boundary
- Perceptual retuning