Abstract
Despite spectral and temporal discontinuities in the speech signal, listeners normally report coherent phonetic patterns corresponding to the phonemes of a language that they know. What is the basis for the internal coherence of phonetic segments? According to one account, listeners achieve coherence by extracting and integrating discrete cues; according to another, coherence arises automatically from general principles of auditory form perception; according to a third, listeners perceive speech patterns as coherent because they are the acoustic consequences of coordinated articulatory gestures in a familiar language. We tested these accounts in three experiments by training listeners to hear a continuum of three-tone, modulated sine wave patterns, modeled after a minimal pair contrast between three-formant synthetic speech syllables, either as distorted speech signals carrying a phonetic contrast (speech listeners) or as distorted musical chords carrying a nonspeech auditory contrast (music listeners). The music listeners could neither integrate the sine wave patterns nor perceive their auditory coherence to arrive at consistent, categorical percepts, whereas the speech listeners judged the patterns as speech almost as reliably as the synthetic syllables on which they were modeled. The outcome is consistent with the hypothesis that listeners perceive the phonetic coherence of a speech signal by recognizing acoustic patterns that reflect the coordinated articulatory gestures from which they arose.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Abramson, A. S., &Lisker, L. (1965). Voice onset time in stop consonants: Acoustic analysis and synthesis. In D. E. Commins (Ed.),Proceedings of the 5th International Congress of Acoustics (A51). Liege: Thone.
Bailey, P. J., &Summerfteld, Q. (1980). Information in speech: Observations on the perception of [s]-stop clusters.Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Perception & Performance,6, 536–563
Bailey, P J., Summerfield, Q., & Dorman, M F (1977). On the identification of sine-wave analogues of certain speech sounds.Haskins Laboratories Status Report, SR51/52, 1–25;.
Best, C. T, McRoberts, G. W., &Sithole, N. M (1988) Examination of perceptual reorganization for non-native speech contrasts. Zulu click discrimination by English-speaking adults and infants.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,14, 345–360
Best, C. T., Morrongiello, B., &Robson, R. (1981). Perceptual equivalence of acoustic cues in speech and nonspeech perceptionPerception & Psychophysics,29, 191–211.
Bregman, A. (1981) Asking the “what for” question in auditory perception. In M. Kubovy & J R. Pomerantz (Eds.),Perceptual organization (pp. 99–118). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Browman, C P., &Goldstein, L. (1986). Towards an articulatory phonology.Phonology Yearbook,3, 219–252.
Cole, R A., &Scott, B (1974). Toward a theory of speech perception.Psychological Review,81, 348–374
Cutting, J E. (1976). Auditory and linguistic processes in speech perception. Inferences from six fusions in dichotic listeningPsychological Review,83, 114–140
Darwin, C. J (1984). Perceiving vowels in the presence of another sound: Constraints on formant perception.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,76, 1636–1647.
Delgutte, B. (1982). Some correlates of phonetic distinctions at the level of the auditory nerve. In R. Carlson & B. Granstrom (Eds),The representation of speech in the peripheral auditory system (pp. 131–149). New York: Elsevier.
Dorman, M. F, Cutting, J. E., &Raphael, L. (1975). Perception of temporal order in vowel sequences with and without formant transitions.Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Perception & Performance,1, 121–129.
Dorman, M. F, Studdert-Kennedy, M., &Raphael, L J. (1977) Stop consonant recognition: Release bursts and formant transitions as functionally equivalent, context-dependent cues.Perception & Psychophysics,22, 109–122
Finney, D J (1971).Probit analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fowler, C A, &Smith, M. (1986). Speech perception as “vector analysis”. An approach to the problems of segmentation and invariance In J S Perkell & D H. Klatt (Eds),Invariance and variability of speech processes (pp. 123–136) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jusczyk, P W. (1986). Toward a model of the development of speech perception. In J. S. Perkell & D H Klatt (Eds.),Invariance and variability of speech processes (pp 1–19). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jusczyk, P. W., Smith, L. B, &Murphy, C. (1981) The perceptual classification of speech.Perception & Psychophysics,30, 10–23
Kelso, J. A. S., Tuller, B., &Harris, K. (1983). A ‘dynamic patternr’ perspective on the control and coordination of movement. In P. MacNeilage (Ed.),The production of speech (pp 138–173). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Kluender, K R, Diehl, R L., &Killeen, P R (1987) Japanese quail can learn phonetic categoriesScience,237, 1195–1197
Mackain, K. S., Best, C. T., &Strange, W (1981) Categorical perception of English Irl and IM by Japanese bilingualsApplied Psycholinguistics,2, 369–390.
Mattingly, I. G. (1981). Phonetic representation and speech synthesis by rule. In T. Myers, J. Laver, & J. Anderson (Eds.),The cognitive representation of speech (pp. 415–420). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Mattingly, I. G., Liberman, A. M, Syrdal, A. M, &Halwes, T. (1971). Discrimination in speech and nonspeech modes.Cognitive Psychology,2, 131–157
Oden, G. C, &Massaro, D. W. (1978). Integration of featural information in speech perception.Psychological Review,85, 172–191
Pastore, R E. (1981). Possible psychoacoustic factors in speech perception. In P. D. Eimas & J. L. Miller (Eds.),Perspectives on the study of speech (pp. 165–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Remez, R. E., Rubin, P. E., Pisoni, D. B, &Carrell, T. D. (1980) Speech perception without traditional speech cues.Science,212, 947–950.
Repp, B H. (1981) Two strategies in fricative discriminationPerception & Psychophysics,30, 217–227.
Repp, B H (1987). The role of psychophysics in understanding speech perception In M. E H. Schouten (Ed),The psychophysics of speech perception (pp. 3–27) Boston Martinus Nijhoff
Saltzman, E., &Kelso, J. A. S. (1987). Skilled actions. A task-dynamic approach.Psychological Review,94, 84–106.
Schouten, M E. H (1980). The case against a speech mode of perceptionActa Otolaryngology,44, 71–98.
Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1986). Sources of variability in early speech development. In J. S. Perkell & D H. Klatt (Eds.),Invariance and variability of speech processes (pp. 58–76) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1987). The phoneme as a perceptuomotor structure In A. Allport, D MacKay, W. Prinz, & E Scheerer (Eds.),Language perception and production (pp 67–84). London: Academic Press
Tomiak, G. R., Mullenix, J W., &Sawusch, J. R. (1987). Integral processing of phonemes: Evidence for a phonetic mode of perceptionJournal of the Acoustical Society of America,81, 755–764
Williams, D. R. (1987).The role of dynamic information in the perception of coarticulated vowels. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Preparation of this paper was supported in part by National Institutes of Health Grant HD-01994 to Haskins Laboratories.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Best, C.T., Studdert-Kennedy, M., Manuel, S. et al. Discovering phonetic coherence in acoustic patterns. Perception & Psychophysics 45, 237–250 (1989). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210703
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210703