使用自上而下与自下而上的线索解决语音歧义的个体差异。

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY Attention Perception & Psychophysics Pub Date : 2024-05-29 DOI:10.3758/s13414-024-02889-4
Anne Marie Crinnion, Christopher C Heffner, Emily B Myers
{"title":"使用自上而下与自下而上的线索解决语音歧义的个体差异。","authors":"Anne Marie Crinnion, Christopher C Heffner, Emily B Myers","doi":"10.3758/s13414-024-02889-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>How listeners weight a wide variety of information to interpret ambiguities in the speech signal is a question of interest in speech perception, particularly when understanding how listeners process speech in the context of phrases or sentences. Dominant views of cue use for language comprehension posit that listeners integrate multiple sources of information to interpret ambiguities in the speech signal. Here, we study how semantic context, sentence rate, and vowel length all influence identification of word-final stops. We find that while at the group level all sources of information appear to influence how listeners interpret ambiguities in speech, at the level of the individual listener, we observe systematic differences in cue reliance, such that some individual listeners favor certain cues (e.g., speech rate and vowel length) to the exclusion of others (e.g., semantic context). While listeners exhibit a range of cue preferences, across participants we find a negative relationship between individuals' weighting of semantic and acoustic-phonetic (sentence rate, vowel length) cues. Additionally, we find that these weightings are stable within individuals over a period of 1 month. Taken as a whole, these findings suggest that theories of cue integration and speech processing may fail to capture the rich individual differences that exist between listeners, which could arise due to mechanistic differences between individuals in speech perception.</p>","PeriodicalId":55433,"journal":{"name":"Attention Perception & Psychophysics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Individual differences in the use of top-down versus bottom-up cues to resolve phonetic ambiguity.\",\"authors\":\"Anne Marie Crinnion, Christopher C Heffner, Emily B Myers\",\"doi\":\"10.3758/s13414-024-02889-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>How listeners weight a wide variety of information to interpret ambiguities in the speech signal is a question of interest in speech perception, particularly when understanding how listeners process speech in the context of phrases or sentences. Dominant views of cue use for language comprehension posit that listeners integrate multiple sources of information to interpret ambiguities in the speech signal. Here, we study how semantic context, sentence rate, and vowel length all influence identification of word-final stops. We find that while at the group level all sources of information appear to influence how listeners interpret ambiguities in speech, at the level of the individual listener, we observe systematic differences in cue reliance, such that some individual listeners favor certain cues (e.g., speech rate and vowel length) to the exclusion of others (e.g., semantic context). While listeners exhibit a range of cue preferences, across participants we find a negative relationship between individuals' weighting of semantic and acoustic-phonetic (sentence rate, vowel length) cues. Additionally, we find that these weightings are stable within individuals over a period of 1 month. Taken as a whole, these findings suggest that theories of cue integration and speech processing may fail to capture the rich individual differences that exist between listeners, which could arise due to mechanistic differences between individuals in speech perception.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55433,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Attention Perception & Psychophysics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Attention Perception & Psychophysics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-024-02889-4\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Attention Perception & Psychophysics","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-024-02889-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

听者如何权衡各种信息以解释语音信号中的歧义,是语音感知中一个令人感兴趣的问题,尤其是在理解听者如何处理短语或句子语境中的语音时。语言理解线索使用的主流观点认为,听者会整合多种信息来源来解释语音信号中的歧义。在此,我们研究了语义语境、句子速度和元音长度如何影响词尾停顿的识别。我们发现,虽然在群体水平上,所有信息源似乎都会影响听者如何解释语音中的歧义,但在听者个体水平上,我们观察到了线索依赖性的系统性差异,例如有些听者个体偏好某些线索(如语速和元音长度),而排斥其他线索(如语义上下文)。虽然听者表现出一系列的线索偏好,但在所有参与者中,我们发现个人对语义和声学-语音(句子速率、元音长度)线索的加权之间存在负相关关系。此外,我们还发现这些权重在个体内部一个月内保持稳定。总而言之,这些研究结果表明,线索整合和语音处理理论可能无法捕捉到听者之间存在的丰富的个体差异,而这些差异可能是由于个体之间在语音感知方面的机制差异造成的。
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
Individual differences in the use of top-down versus bottom-up cues to resolve phonetic ambiguity.

How listeners weight a wide variety of information to interpret ambiguities in the speech signal is a question of interest in speech perception, particularly when understanding how listeners process speech in the context of phrases or sentences. Dominant views of cue use for language comprehension posit that listeners integrate multiple sources of information to interpret ambiguities in the speech signal. Here, we study how semantic context, sentence rate, and vowel length all influence identification of word-final stops. We find that while at the group level all sources of information appear to influence how listeners interpret ambiguities in speech, at the level of the individual listener, we observe systematic differences in cue reliance, such that some individual listeners favor certain cues (e.g., speech rate and vowel length) to the exclusion of others (e.g., semantic context). While listeners exhibit a range of cue preferences, across participants we find a negative relationship between individuals' weighting of semantic and acoustic-phonetic (sentence rate, vowel length) cues. Additionally, we find that these weightings are stable within individuals over a period of 1 month. Taken as a whole, these findings suggest that theories of cue integration and speech processing may fail to capture the rich individual differences that exist between listeners, which could arise due to mechanistic differences between individuals in speech 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
3.60
自引率
17.60%
发文量
197
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics is an official journal of the Psychonomic Society. It spans all areas of research in sensory processes, perception, attention, and psychophysics. Most articles published are reports of experimental work; the journal also presents theoretical, integrative, and evaluative reviews. Commentary on issues of importance to researchers appears in a special section of the journal. Founded in 1966 as Perception & Psychophysics, the journal assumed its present name in 2009.
期刊最新文献
Combined manifestation of two geometric visual illusions. Valence versus motivation: The different impact of emotion on space- and object-based attention. The effect of object perception on event integration and segregation Multisensory working memory capture of attention Guess what? Only correct choices forge immediate stimulus–response bindings in guessing scenarios
×
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