En este trabajo se revisan las distintas teorías prupuestas para resolver los problemas de la percepción del habla. Las teorías se agrupan en cuatro categorías conceptualmente diferentes: teorías articulatorias (teoría motora y teoría realista directa), teorías auditivas (teoría auditiva de Fant y teoría cuantica de Stevens), teorías acústicas (teoría de la invarianza acústica y LAFS) y teorías conexionistas (modelo TRACE). Se exponen los principios fundamentales de cada una de ellas y se realiza un análisis crítico de los mismos.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonJ.A.SilversteinJ.W.RitzS.A.JonesR.S. (1977). Distinctive features, categorical perception and probability learning: Some applications of a neural model.Psychological Review, 5, 413–451.
2.
AtalB. (1983). Efficient coding of LPC parameters by temporal descomposition.ICASSP-83.
3.
AtalB.ChangJ.J.MathewsM.V.TukeyJ.W. (1978). Inversion of articulatory to acoustic transformation in the vocal tract by a computer sorting technique.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 63, 1535–1556.
4.
BlumsteinS.E. (1986). On acoustic invariance in speech. EnPerkellJ.S.KlattD.H. (eds.), Invariance and variability in speech processes.Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
5.
BlumsteinS.E.StevensK.N. (1979). Acoustic invariance in speech production: Evidence from measurements of the spectral characteristics of stop consonants.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 66, 1001–1018.
6.
BlumsteinS.E.StevensK.N. (1980). Perceptual invariance and onset spectra for stop consonants in different vowels enviroments.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 648–662.
7.
BlumsteinS.E.StevensK.N. (1981). Phonetic features and acoustic invariance in speech.Cognition, 10, 25–32.
8.
BrowmanC.GoldsteinL. (1991). Gestural structures: Distinctiveness, phonological processes, and historical change. EnMattinglyI.G.Studdert-Kenn EdyM. (Eds.), Modularity and the motor theory of speech perception.Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
9.
CarlsonR.GramströmB. (1982). Towards an auditory spectrograph. EnCarlsonR.GranströmB. (eds.), The representation of speech in the peripheral auditory system.Amsterdam: Elsevier Biomedical Press.
10.
ColeR.A.ScottB. (1974). Towards a theory of speech perception.Psychological Review, 81, 348–374.
11.
CuttingJ.E. (1986). Perception with and eye for motion.Londres: MIT Press.
12.
ChistovichL.A.LublinskayaV.V. (1979). The «center of gravity» effect in vowel spectra and critical distance between the formants: Psychoacoustical study of the perception of vowel-like stimuli.Hearing Research, 1, 185–195.
13.
DelgutteB. (1982). Some correlates of phonetic distinctions at the level of the auditory nerve. EnCarlsonR.GanstromB. (Eds.), The representation of speech in the peripheral auditory system.Nueva York: Elsevier Biomedical Press.
14.
DelgutteB. (1986). Analysis of French stop consonants using a model of the peripheral auditory system. EnPerkellJ.S.KlattD.H. (eds.), Invariance and variability in speech processes.Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
15.
DiehlR.L. (1986). Coproduction and direct perception of phonetic segments: a critique.Journal of Phonetics, 14, 61–66.
16.
DiehlR.L.KluenderK.R. (1989). On the objects of speech perception.Ecological Psychology, 1, 121–144.
17.
ElmanJ.L.McclellandJ.L. (1986). Exploiting lawful variability in the speech wave. EnPerkellJ.S.KlattD.H. (Eds.), Invariance and variability in speech processes.Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
18.
FantG. (1960). Acoustic theory of speech production.La Haya: Mouton.
19.
FantG. (1962). Descriptive analysis of the acoustic aspects of speech.Logos, 5, 3–17.
20.
FodorJ.A. (1983). The modularity of mindCambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
FodorJ.A.PylyshynZ. (1981). How direct is visual perception?: some reflections on Gibson's «Ecological Approach».Cognition, 9, 139–196.
22.
FodorJ.A.PylyshynZ. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis.Cognition, 28, 3–71.
23.
FowlerC. (1986). An event approach to the study of speech perception from a direct-realist perspective.Journal of phonetics, 14, 3–28.
24.
FowlerC. (1989). Real objects of speech perception: A comentary on Diehl and Kluender.Ecological Psychology, 1, 145–160.
25.
FowlerC.SmithM.R. (1986). Speech perception as «vector analysis»: An approach to the problems of invariance and segmentation. EnPerkellJ.S.KlattD.H. (Eds.), Invariance and variability in speech processes.Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
26.
FowlerC.RosenblumL. (1991). The perception of phonetic gestures. EnMattinglyI.G.Studdert-KennedyM.S. (eds.), Modularity and the motor theory of speech perception.Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
27.
FrenchN.R.SteinbergJ.C. (1947). Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 19, 90–119.
28.
FujimuraO. (1986). Comments on Fowler's paper.Journal of Phonetics, 14, 67–68.
29.
FujisakiH.LjungqvistM. (1987). Estimation of voice source and vocal tract parameters based on ARMA analysis and a model for the glottal source waveform.ICASSP-87.
30.
García-albeaJ.E. (1991). Entrevista con Jerry Fodor.Revista d Occidente, 119, 17–46.
31.
GibsonJ.J. (1966). The senses consideres as perceptual systems.Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
32.
GibsonJ.J. (1979): The ecological approach to visual perception.Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
33.
GuinanJ.J.PeakeW.T. (1967). Middle ear characterist ics of anesthetized cats.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 41, 1237–1261.
34.
HoutgastT. (1977). Auditory filter characteristics derived from direct masking data and pulsation threshold data with a rippled-noise masker.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 62, 409–414.
35.
JenkinsJ.J. (1991). Summary of the conference: Speech is special. EnMattinglyI.G.Studdert- KennedyM. (Eds.), Modularity and the motor theory of speech perception.Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
36.
JohanssonG. (1985). About visual event perception. EnWarrenW.H.ShawR.E. (Eds.). Persistence and ChangeLondres: LEA.
37.
Kewley-PortD. (1983). Time varying features as correlates of place of articulation in stop consonants.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 73, 322–335.
38.
Kewley-PortD.LuceP. (1984). Time-varying features of initial stop consonants in auditory running spectra: A first report.Perception and Psychophysics, 35, 353–360.
39.
KiangN.Y.WatambeT.ThomasE.C.ClarkL.F. (1965). Discharge patterns of single fibers in the car's auditory nerve.M.I.T. Research Monograph, 35.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40.
KlattD.H. (1976). Linguistic uses of segment duration in English: Acoustic and perceptual evidence.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 59, 1208–1221.
41.
KlattD.H. (1979). Speech perception: a model of acoustic- phonetic analysis and lexical access.Journal of Phonetics, 1, 279–312.
42.
KlattD.H. (1982). Speech processing strategies based on auditory models. EnCarlsonR.GanstromB. (Eds.), The representation of speech in the peripheral auditory system.Nueva York: Elsevier Biomedical Press.
43.
KlattD.H. (1989). Review of selected models of speech perception. EnMarslen-WilsonW.D. (Ed.), Lexical representation and process.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44.
LibermanA.M. (1991). Afterthougths on modularity and the motor theory. EnMattinglyI.G.Studdert-KennedyM.S. (Eds.), Modularity and the motor theory of speech perception.Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
45.
LibermanA.M.DelattreP.C.CooperF.S. (1952). The role of selected stimulus variables in the perception of unvoiced stop consonants.American Journal of Psychology, 65, 497–516.
46.
LibermanA.M.CooperF.S.HarrisK.MacneilageP.F. (1962). A motor theory of speech perception.Proceedings of the speech communication seminar, Vol. 2, D3. Estocolmo: Royal Institute of Technology.
47.
LibermanA.M.CooperF.S.ShankweilerD.P.Studdert-KennedyM. (1967). Perception of the speech code.Psychological review, 14, 431–461.
48.
LibermanA.M.MattinglyI.G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised.Cognition, 21, 1–36.
49.
LickliderJ.C.R. (1952). On the process of speech perception.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24, 590–594.
50.
LilloJ. (1991). Ecología perceptiva y procesamiento de la informacion: una integración necesaria.Cognitiva, 3, 3–26.
51.
López-bascuasL.E. (1994a). Procesamiento auditivo general y procesamiento específico en la percepción del habla (I): efectos derivados de la asignación de fronteras perceptivas.Estudios d Psicología, 52, 37–53.
52.
López-bascuasL.E. (1994b). Procesamiento auditivo general y procesamiento específico en la percepción del habla (II): efectos de integración perceptiva.Estudios d Psicología, 52, 55–66.
MacneilageP.F. (1991). Comment: The gesture as a unit in speech perception theories. EnMattinglyI.G.Studdert-Ken NedyM. (Eds.), Modularity and the motor theory of speech perception.Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
55.
MassaroD.W. (1986). A new perspective and old problems.Journal of Phonetics, 14, 69–74.
56.
McclellandJ.L.RumelhartD.E. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. (Vols. 1 y 2). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
57.
McclellandJ.L.ElmamJ.L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception.Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–86.
58.
MillerG.A.GalanterE.PribramK. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior.Nueva York: Holt, Reinhart y Winston.
59.
MillerJ.D. (1982). Auditory-perceptual approaches to phonetic perception.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 71, S112 (A).
60.
OhalaJ.J. (1986). Against the direct realist view of speech perception.Journal of Phonetics, 14, 75–82
61.
O'shaughnessyD. (1987). Speech communication: Human and machine.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
62.
RemezR.E. (1986). Realism, language, and another barrier.Journal of Phonetics, 14, 89–97.
63.
RosenblumL.D.FowlerC. (1991). Audiovisual integration of the loudness-effort effect for speech and nonspeech events.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 976–985
64.
SeneffS. (1986). A synchrony model for auditory processing of speech. EnPerkellJ.S.KlattD.H. (Eds.), Invariance and variability in speech processes.Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
65.
SeneffS. (1988). A joint synchrony/mean-rate response model of auditory speech processing.Journal of Phonetics, 16, 55–76.
66.
ShammaS. (1988). The acoustic features of speech sounds in a model of auditory processing: Vowels and voiceless fricatives.Journal of Phonetics, 16, 77–92.
67.
StevensK.N. (1972). The quantal nature of speech: Evidence from articulatory-acoustic data. EnDenesP.B.DavidE.E.Jr. (Eds.), Human communication: A unified view.Nueva York: MaGraw-Hill.
68.
StevensK.H.(1989). On the quantal nature of speech.Journal ofphonetics, 17, 3–45.
69.
StevensK.H.HouseA.S. (1972). Speech perception. EnTobiasJ. (ed.), Foundations of modern auditory theory, Vol. 2. Nueva York: Academic Press.
70.
StevensK.H.BlumsteinS.E. (1978). Invariant cues for place of articulation in stops consonants.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64, 1358–1368.
71.
StevensK.H.BlumsteinS.E. (1981). The search for invariant acoustic correlates of phonetic features. EnEimasP.D.MillerJ.L. (Eds.), Perspectives on the study of speech.Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Studdert-KennedyM. (1986). Two cheers for direct realism.Journal of Phonetics, 14, 99–104.
74.
Studdert-KennedyM. (1989). Cues to what? A comment on Diehl and Kluender «On the objects of speech perception».Ecological Psychology, 1, 181–193.
75.
WienerF.M.RossD.A. (1946). The pressure distribution in the auditory canal in a progressive sound field.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 18, 401–408.
