测试语音节奏感知中的典型形式定向

IF 1.5 3区 心理学 Q4 PHYSIOLOGY Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-14 DOI:10.1177/17470218231198344
Leendert Plug, Robert Lennon, Rachel Smith
{"title":"测试语音节奏感知中的典型形式定向","authors":"Leendert Plug, Robert Lennon, Rachel Smith","doi":"10.1177/17470218231198344","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We report on two experiments that aimed to test the hypothesis that English listeners orient to full pronunciation forms-\"canonical forms\"-in judging the tempo of speech that features deletions. If listeners orient to canonical forms, this should mean that the perceived tempo of speech containing deletions is highly relative to the speech's articulation rate calculated on the basis of surface phone strings. We used controlled stimuli to test this hypothesis. We created sentences with one ambiguous word form (for example, <i>support~sport</i>), to give half of the listeners an orthographic form that includes <i>support</i> and the other half an otherwise identical orthographic form with <i>sport</i>. In both experiments, listeners judged the tempo of the sentences, which allowed us to assess whether the difference in imposed interpretation had an impact on perceived tempo. Experiment 1 used a tempo rating task in which listeners evaluated the tempo of experimental stimuli relative to comparison stimuli, on a continuous scale. Experiment 2 used a tempo comparison task in which listeners judged whether second members of stimulus pairs were slower or faster than first members. Both experiments revealed the predicted effect of the imposed word interpretation: sentences with an imposed \"schwa\" interpretation for the ambiguous word form were judged faster than (the same) sentences with an imposed \"no schwa\" interpretation. However, in both experiments the effect was small and variables related to the experimental design had significant effects on responses. We discuss the results' implications for our understanding of speech tempo perception.</p>","PeriodicalId":20869,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1443-1461"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11181739/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Testing for canonical form orientation in speech tempo perception.\",\"authors\":\"Leendert Plug, Robert Lennon, Rachel Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17470218231198344\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We report on two experiments that aimed to test the hypothesis that English listeners orient to full pronunciation forms-\\\"canonical forms\\\"-in judging the tempo of speech that features deletions. If listeners orient to canonical forms, this should mean that the perceived tempo of speech containing deletions is highly relative to the speech's articulation rate calculated on the basis of surface phone strings. We used controlled stimuli to test this hypothesis. We created sentences with one ambiguous word form (for example, <i>support~sport</i>), to give half of the listeners an orthographic form that includes <i>support</i> and the other half an otherwise identical orthographic form with <i>sport</i>. In both experiments, listeners judged the tempo of the sentences, which allowed us to assess whether the difference in imposed interpretation had an impact on perceived tempo. Experiment 1 used a tempo rating task in which listeners evaluated the tempo of experimental stimuli relative to comparison stimuli, on a continuous scale. Experiment 2 used a tempo comparison task in which listeners judged whether second members of stimulus pairs were slower or faster than first members. Both experiments revealed the predicted effect of the imposed word interpretation: sentences with an imposed \\\"schwa\\\" interpretation for the ambiguous word form were judged faster than (the same) sentences with an imposed \\\"no schwa\\\" interpretation. However, in both experiments the effect was small and variables related to the experimental design had significant effects on responses. We discuss the results' implications for our understanding of speech tempo perception.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1443-1461\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11181739/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231198344\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231198344","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们报告了两个实验,旨在检验英语听者在判断带有删音的语音的节奏时以完整发音形式--"标准形式"--为导向的假设。如果听者以标准发音形式为导向,那么这就意味着包含删音的语音的感知节奏与根据表面音串计算出的语音发音速度高度相关。我们使用受控刺激来验证这一假设。我们创造了带有一个模棱两可词形(例如,support~sport)的句子,让一半的听者听到包含 support 的正字法词形,另一半听者听到包含 sport 的相同正字法词形。在这两项实验中,听者都对句子的节奏进行了判断,这使我们能够评估强加解释的差异是否会对感知节奏产生影响。实验 1 采用的是节奏评级任务,听者根据连续的评分标准对实验刺激与对比刺激的节奏进行评估。实验 2 采用的是节奏比较任务,听者会判断刺激对中的第二个成员比第一个成员慢还是快。这两项实验都显示了外加词语解释的预期效果:对模棱两可的词形外加 "schwa "解释的句子比(同样的)外加 "no schwa "解释的句子更快。然而,在这两个实验中,这种效应都很小,而且与实验设计相关的变量对反应有显著影响。我们将讨论这些结果对我们理解语音节奏感知的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Testing for canonical form orientation in speech tempo perception.

We report on two experiments that aimed to test the hypothesis that English listeners orient to full pronunciation forms-"canonical forms"-in judging the tempo of speech that features deletions. If listeners orient to canonical forms, this should mean that the perceived tempo of speech containing deletions is highly relative to the speech's articulation rate calculated on the basis of surface phone strings. We used controlled stimuli to test this hypothesis. We created sentences with one ambiguous word form (for example, support~sport), to give half of the listeners an orthographic form that includes support and the other half an otherwise identical orthographic form with sport. In both experiments, listeners judged the tempo of the sentences, which allowed us to assess whether the difference in imposed interpretation had an impact on perceived tempo. Experiment 1 used a tempo rating task in which listeners evaluated the tempo of experimental stimuli relative to comparison stimuli, on a continuous scale. Experiment 2 used a tempo comparison task in which listeners judged whether second members of stimulus pairs were slower or faster than first members. Both experiments revealed the predicted effect of the imposed word interpretation: sentences with an imposed "schwa" interpretation for the ambiguous word form were judged faster than (the same) sentences with an imposed "no schwa" interpretation. However, in both experiments the effect was small and variables related to the experimental design had significant effects on responses. We discuss the results' implications for our understanding of speech tempo perception.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
178
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Promoting the interests of scientific psychology and its researchers, QJEP, the journal of the Experimental Psychology Society, is a leading journal with a long-standing tradition of publishing cutting-edge research. Several articles have become classic papers in the fields of attention, perception, learning, memory, language, and reasoning. The journal publishes original articles on any topic within the field of experimental psychology (including comparative research). These include substantial experimental reports, review papers, rapid communications (reporting novel techniques or ground breaking results), comments (on articles previously published in QJEP or on issues of general interest to experimental psychologists), and book reviews. Experimental results are welcomed from all relevant techniques, including behavioural testing, brain imaging and computational modelling. QJEP offers a competitive publication time-scale. Accepted Rapid Communications have priority in the publication cycle and usually appear in print within three months. We aim to publish all accepted (but uncorrected) articles online within seven days. Our Latest Articles page offers immediate publication of articles upon reaching their final form. The journal offers an open access option called Open Select, enabling authors to meet funder requirements to make their article free to read online for all in perpetuity. Authors also benefit from a broad and diverse subscription base that delivers the journal contents to a world-wide readership. Together these features ensure that the journal offers authors the opportunity to raise the visibility of their work to a global audience.
期刊最新文献
Reasoning in social versus non-social domains and its relation to autistic traits. When is a causal illusion an illusion? Separating discriminability and bias in human contingency judgements. Advancing an account of hierarchical dual-task control: A focused review on abstract higher-level task representations in dual-task situations. The effect of chronic academic stress on attentional bias towards value-associated stimuli. Is the precedence of social re-orienting only inherent to the initiators?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1