Abstract
This study investigated whether consonant phonetic features or consonant acoustic properties more appropriately describe perceptual confusions among speech stimuli in multitalker babble backgrounds. Ten normal-hearing subjects identified 19 consonants, each paired with /a/, 1–19 and lui in a CV format. The stimuli were presented in quiet and in three levels of babble. Multidimensional scaling analyses of the confusion data retrieved stimulus dimensions corresponding to consonant acoustic parameters. The acoustic dimensions identified were: periodicity/burst onset, friction duration, consonant-vowel ratio, second formant transition slope, and first formant transition onset. These findings are comparable to previous reports of acoustic effects observed in white-noise conditions, and support the theory that acoustic characteristics are the relevant perceptual properties of speech in noise conditions. Perceptual effects of vowel context and level of the babble also were observed. These condition effects contrast with those previously reported for white-noise interference, and are attributed to direct masking of the low-frequency acoustic cues in the nonsense syllables by the low-frequency spectrum of the babble.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
ANSI (1969).Stanford specification for audiometers (ANSI S3.6-1969, R-1973). New York: American National Standards Institute.
Arabie, P., &Sou, S. (1982). The interface between the types of regression and methods of collecting proximity data. In R. G. Golledge & J.N. Rayner (Eds.),Proximity and preference: Problems in the multidimensional analysis of large data sets, (pp. 90–115). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Carhart, R., Johnson, C, &Goodman, J. (1975). Perceptual masking of speakers by combinations of talkers.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,58, 35A.
Carhart, R., Tillman, T W, &Greetis, E. (1969). Perceptual masking in multiple speech backgrounds.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,45, 694–703.
Carroll, J. D., &Chang, J. J. (1970). Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an N-way generalization of “Eckart-Young” decomposition.Pscyhometrika,35, 238–319.
Horii, Y., House, A. S., &Hughes, G. W. (1970). A masking noise with speech-envelope characteristics for studying intelligibility.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,49, 1849–1856.
Kalikow, D. N., Stevens, K, N., &Elliott, L. L. (1977). Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,61, 1337–1351.
Kirk, R. E. (1968).Experimental design. Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Liberman, A. M., Delattre, P. C, Gerstman, L. J., &Cooper, F S. (1956) Tempo of frequency change as a cue for distinguishing classes of speech sounds.Journal of Experimental Psychology,52, 127–137
Lisker, L. (1975). Is it VOT or a first formant transition detector.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,51, 1547–1551.
Lisker, L., &Abramson, A. S. (1964). A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustic measurements.Word,20, 384–422.
Markel, J. D., &Gray, A H., Jr. (1976).Linear prediction of speech. Berlin. Springer
Miller, G A., &Nicely, P. E. (1955). An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,21, 338–352
Mitchell, L. M., &Singh, S. (1974). Perceptual structure of 16 prevocalic English consonants sententially embedded.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,55, 1355–1357.
Peterson, G E, &Barney, H. L. (1952) Control methods used in a study of the vowels.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,24, 175–184.
Shephard, R. N. (1972), Psychological representation of speech sounds. In E. E. David & P. B. Denes (Eds.),Human communication: A unified view (pp. 67–113). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Singh, S. (1971). Perceptual similarities and minimal phonemic differences.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,14, 113–124.
Singh, S. (1973).A unified theory of speech perception. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech and Hearing Association, Detroit, MI,
Soli, S., &Arabie, P. (1979). Auditory versus phonetic accounts of observed confusions between consonants.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,66, 46–59.
Speaks, C, Karmen, J. L., &Benitez, L. (1967). Effect of a competing message on synthetic sentence identification.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,10, 390–395,
Stevens, K. N., &Klatt, D. (1974). Role of formant transitions in the voiced-voiceless distinction for stops.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,55, 653–659.
WAlden, B. E, &Montgomery, A. A. (1975). Dimensions of consonant perception in normal and hearing-impaired listeners.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,18, 444–455.
Wang, M. D., &Bilger, R. C, (1973). Consonant confusions in noise: A study of perceptual features.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,54, 1248–1266.
Wish, M., &Carroll, J. D. (1973). Applications of ‘TNDSCAL’ to studies of human perception and judgment. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.),Handbook of perception (4th ed.) (pp. 449–489). New York: Academic Press.
Young, F. W., &Lewyckyj, R. (1979).ALSCAL-4 user’s guide. Carrboro, NC: Data Analysis and Theory Associates
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported in part by Biomedical Research Support Grant RR-07042 to the University of Maryland from the Division of Research Resources, National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service. The computer time for this project was supported in part through the facilities of the Computer Science Center of the University of Maryland.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gordon-Salant, S. Some perceptual properties of consonants in multitalker babble. Perception & Psychophysics 38, 81–90 (1985). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202928
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202928