Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 488–495 | Cite as

Dual-learning systems during speech category learning

  • Bharath Chandrasekaran
  • Han-Gyol Yi
  • W. Todd Maddox
Brief Report

Abstract

Dual-system models of visual category learning posit the existence of an explicit, hypothesis-testing reflective system, as well as an implicit, procedural-based reflexive system. The reflective and reflexive learning systems are competitive and neurally dissociable. Relatively little is known about the role of these domain-general learning systems in speech category learning. Given the multidimensional, redundant, and variable nature of acoustic cues in speech categories, our working hypothesis is that speech categories are learned reflexively. To this end, we examined the relative contribution of these learning systems to speech learning in adults. Native English speakers learned to categorize Mandarin tone categories over 480 trials. The training protocol involved trial-by-trial feedback and multiple talkers. Experiments 1 and 2 examined the effect of manipulating the timing (immediate vs. delayed) and information content (full vs. minimal) of feedback. Dual-system models of visual category learning predict that delayed feedback and providing rich, informational feedback enhance reflective learning, while immediate and minimally informative feedback enhance reflexive learning. Across the two experiments, our results show that feedback manipulations that targeted reflexive learning enhanced category learning success. In Experiment 3, we examined the role of trial-to-trial talker information (mixed vs. blocked presentation) on speech category learning success. We hypothesized that the mixed condition would enhance reflexive learning by not allowing an association between talker-related acoustic cues and speech categories. Our results show that the mixed talker condition led to relatively greater accuracies. Our experiments demonstrate that speech categories are optimally learned by training methods that target the reflexive learning system.

Keywords

Speech perception Category learning Human memory and learning Perceptual learning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by NIMH grants MH077708 and DA032457 to W.T.M. We thank the Maddox Lab RAs for data collection. Address correspondence to Bharath Chandrasekaran (bchandra@utexas.edu) or W. Todd Maddox (maddox@psy.utexas.edu).

References

  1. Apfelbaum, K. S., & McMurray, B. (2011). Using variability to guide dimensional weighting: Associative mechanisms in early word learning. Cognitive Science, 35(6), 1105–1138.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashby, F. G., & Maddox, W. T. (2005). Human category learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 149–178.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashby, F. G., & Ell, S. W. (2001). The neurobiology of human category learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(5), 204–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes.Google Scholar
  5. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2011). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.2. 41)[Computer program]. Retrieved 17 September, 2011.Google Scholar
  6. Callan, D. E., Tajima, K., Callan, A. M., Kubo, R., Masaki, S., & Akahane-Yamada, R. (2003). Learning-induced neural plasticity associated with improved identification performance after training of a difficult second-language phonetic contrast. NeuroImage, 19(1), 113–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chandrasekaran, B., Sampath, P. D., & Wong, P. C. (2010). Individual variability in cue-weighting and lexical tone learning. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(1), 456–465.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Echols, C. H. (1993). A perceptually-based model of children's earliest productions. Cognition, 46(3), 245–296.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gandour, J. (1983). Tone perception in Far Eastern languages. Journal of Phonetics, 11, 149–175.Google Scholar
  10. Goudbeek, M., Cutler, A., & Smits, R. (2008). Supervised and unsupervised learning of multidimensionally varying non-native speech categories. Speech Communication, 50(2), 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goudbeek, M., Swingley, D., & Smits, R. (2009). Supervised and unsupervised learning of multidimensional acoustic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 35(6), 1913–1933.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guenther, F. H., Nieto-Castanon, A., Ghosh, S. S., & Tourville, J. A. (2004). Representation of sound categories in auditory cortical maps. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(1), 46–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holt, L. L., & Lotto, A. J. (2008). Speech Perception Within an Auditory Cognitive Science Framework. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(1), 42–46.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holt, L. L., & Lotto, A. J. (2010). Speech perception as categorization. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(5), 1218–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Knowlton, B. J. (1999). What can neuropsychology tell us about category learning? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(4), 123–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94(3 Pt 1), 1242.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maddox, W. T., Ashby, F. G., & Bohil, C. J. (2003). Delayed feedback effects on rule-based and information-integration category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(4), 650–662.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Maddox, W. T., Love, B. C., Glass, B. D., & Filoteo, J. V. (2008). When more is less: Feedback effects in perceptual category learning. Cognition, 108(2), 578–589.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McClelland, J. L., Fiez, J. A., & McCandliss, B. D. (2002). Teaching the /r/-/l/ discrimination to Japanese adults: Behavioral and neural aspects. Physiology & Behavior, 77(4–5), 657–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McMurray, B., Aslin, R. N., & Toscano, J. C. (2009). Statistical learning of phonetic categories: Insights from a computational approach. Developmental Science, 12(3), 369–378.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mugitani, R., Pons, F., Fais, L., Dietrich, C., Werker, J. F., & Amano, S. (2009). Perception of vowel length by Japanese- and English-learning infants. Developmental Psychology, 45(1), 236–247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nomura, E. M., & Reber, P. J. (2008). A review of medial temporal lobe and caudate contributions to visual category learning. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 32(2), 279–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2003). Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 204–238.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Perrachione, T. K., Lee, J., Ha, L. Y., & Wong, P. C. (2011). Learning a novel phonological contrast depends on interactions between individual differences and training paradigm design. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(1), 461–472.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Petrides, M., & Pandya, D. N. (1988). Association fiber pathways to the frontal cortex from the superior temporal region in the rhesus monkey. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 273(1), 52–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2003). Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology. Language and Speech, 46(Pt 2–3), 115–154.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Poldrack, R. A., & Packard, M. G. (2003). Competition among multiple memory systems: Converging evidence from animal and human brain studies. Neuropsychologia, 41(3), 245–251.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rost, G. C., & McMurray, B. (2009). Speaker variability augments phonological processing in early word learning. Developmental Science, 12(2), 339–349.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Seger, C. A., & Miller, E. K. (2010). Category learning in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 33, 203–219.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Toscano, J. C., & McMurray, B. (2010). Cue Integration With Categories: Weighting Acoustic Cues in Speech Using Unsupervised Learning and Distributional Statistics. Cognitive Science, 34(3), 434–464.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tricomi, E., Delgado, M. R., McCandliss, B. D., McClelland, J. L., & Fiez, J. A. (2006). Performance feedback drives caudate activation in a phonological learning task. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(6), 1029–1043.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vallabha, G. K., & McClelland, J. L. (2007). Success and failure of new speech category learning in adulthood: Consequences of learned Hebbian attractors in topographic maps. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(1), 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vallabha, G. K., McClelland, J. L., Pons, F., Werker, J. F., & Amano, S. (2007). Unsupervised learning of vowel categories from infant-directed speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(33), 13273–13278.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang, Y., Jongman, A., & Sereno, J. A. (2003). Acoustic and perceptual evaluation of Mandarin tone productions before and after perceptual training. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113(2), 1033–1043.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wong, P. C., Nusbaum, H. C., & Small, S. L. (2004). Neural bases of talker normalization. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(7), 1173–1184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wong, P. C., Perrachione, T. K., & Parrish, T. B. (2007). Neural characteristics of successful and less successful speech and word learning in adults. Human Brain Mapping, 28(10), 995–1006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yeterian, E. H., & Pandya, D. N. (1998). Corticostriatal connections of the superior temporal region in rhesus monkeys. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 399(3), 384–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bharath Chandrasekaran
    • 1
  • Han-Gyol Yi
    • 1
  • W. Todd Maddox
    • 2
  1. 1.Communication Sciences and DisordersThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations